Legal Ethics
Court Suspends Lawyer Who Ignored Discovery, Cited Billable Pressures
Posted Oct 7, 2008 9:43 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
The Georgia Supreme Court has reprimanded and imposed a one-month suspension on a lawyer who said he ignored discovery requests in a 2006 case in part because he was dealing with stress caused by billable hour pressures.
The court gave the limited suspension to Stephen Lee Stincer, citing mitigating factors in his case. The Legal Profession Blog posted the opinion (PDF).
Stincer had been an associate for only three years when he was assigned to conduct discovery for a federal product liability case, even though he had little experience in the area, the opinion states. He did not respond to discovery requests or forward them to the client and made misrepresentations to the court, according to the opinion.
At the time, Stincer had personal problems and was feeling stress at work because of pressure to add billable hours and study for the South Carolina bar exam while continuing to practice. The anxiety caused insomnia and panic attacks.
Stincer eventually resigned from the firm, which wasn’t named in the opinion, and sought treatment for the stress. The petition was before the court on a petition for voluntary discipline filed by Stincer. He did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

Comments
ESP
Oct 10, 2008 5:31 AM CST
I actually had an opposing attorney return partial, inaccurate discovery responses to me over a month late with a over letter explaining that they were late because “I’ve just been very busy with other cases.” I ended up winning the case on a motion for summary judgment, based on deemed admissions. If I was him I’d be contacting my malpractice carrier, because I think his client had a very good case for malpractice!
Flag this comment
Chuck
Oct 10, 2008 8:03 AM CST
No doubt that this kid should have taken a few basic steps like forwarding the discovery to the client for comment and he should never have made misrepresentations to the court, but the partners at his firm that assigned a third year associate to oversee discovery in a federal court case, apparently without any oversight, should’ve been disciplined as well.
Flag this comment
Charles Schwartz
Oct 10, 2008 10:37 AM CST
In spite of the errors the associate committed, I think he should also be commended for realizing he screwed up, voluntarily seeking to be disciplined, and seeking her own treatment. Not to excuse what happened, but there’s something to be said for acting approiately after the fact.
Flag this comment
R
Oct 10, 2008 11:21 AM CST
Agree with Charles Schwartz. The guy acted honorably after the fact, took responsibility for his screw-ups, accepted his discipline. Let’s hope he gets this behind him and goes on to a successful law career.
Flag this comment
Heather
Oct 10, 2008 12:00 PM CST
I agree with Charles and R, but I doubt his client will feel sorry for him. Anyone who can’t handle the “stress” of sending a piece of mail to a client is in the wrong line of work. His firm should be sanctioned for failing to supervise him, but he should also consider a different career. Clients deserve better.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.