128 DB 2014
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner No. 128 DB 2014 File No. C3-14-186 v. Attorney Registration No. 53142 NEIL ANTHONY GROVER Respondent (Dauphin County) PUBLIC REPRIMAND Neil A. Grover, you stand before the Disciplinary Board, your professional peers and members of the public for the imposition of a Public Reprimand. It is an unpleasant task to publicly reprimand one who has been granted the privilege of membership in the Bar of this Commonwealth. Yet as repugnant as this task may be, it has been deemed necessary that you receive this public discipline. Mr. Grover, by fee letter dated November 13, 2009, you were retained by Jaimie Baltimore to represent him in an employment action against Evelyn Henderson and Henderson Limousine Services, Inc. At the time that you entered into the fee arrangement with Mr. Baltimore, a complaint had been filed by you on your client's behalf in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, to which preliminary objections had been filed by Henderson. However, after being retained by Mr. Baltimore, you utterly failed to take any further action on the matter, and Mr. Baltimore was completely unable to reach you via telephone, nor did you respond to messages left by Mr. Baltimore with your receptionist. This went on for a period of years. ' ' By Notice dated March 12, 2012, the Honorable Lawrence F. Clark issued a Notice of Proposed Termination of Court Case, stating that the docket indicated no activity in the matter for at least two years and that the Court intended to terminate the case. You failed to notify your client of the Notice; however, you filed a Statement of Intent to Proceed with the Court on May 1, 2012. Subsequently, Judge Clark entered a Scheduling Order setting timelines for discovery, mediation, dispositive motions, supporting briefs, and the filing of a certificate of readiness for trial. You failed to comply with the Scheduling Order and took no further action on Mr. Baltimore's matter. There was no additional docket activity subsequent to the entry of the Scheduling Order. Mr. Baltimore filed a complaint with Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which in response to this complaint, attempted on numerous occasions to contact you with no success. By letters dated May 20, 2014, and June 23, 2014, Disciplinary Counsel sent you a DB-7 Request for Statement of Respondent's Position. You failed to respond to either letter. Postal records confirm that you received these communications. Your actions have violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct and Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement: 1. client. RPC 1.1 - A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. 2. RPC 1.3 - A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. '' ' 3. RPC 1.4(a)(3) -A lawyer shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter. 4. RPC 1.4(a)(4) - A lawyer shall promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. 5. Pa.R.D.E. 203(b)(7) - It is grounds for discipline for a respondent- attorney to fail, without good cause, to respond to Disciplinary Counsel's request for a statement of the respondent-attorney's position. We note for the record that you have practiced law in Pennsylvania since 1988. You received an Informal Admonition in 2013 for misconduct similar to the current instance, in that you failed to pursue and protect a client's interests. Please be aware that any subsequent violations of the ethical rules can only result in further discipline and perhaps even more severe sanctions than that imposed today. Mr. Grover, the conduct that has brought you to this moment is in the record of this proceeding and is now fully public. This Public Reprimand is now a matter of public record. This Public Reprimand shall be posted on the Disciplinary Board's website at www.padisciplinarvboard.org. Designated M mber The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Administered by a designated panel of three Members of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on December 23, 2014. . '' ACKNOWLEDGMENT The undersigned, Respondent in the above proceeding, herewith acknowledges that the above Public Reprimand was administered in his presence and in the presence of the designated panel of The Disciplinary Board at 161h Floor, Seven Penn Center, 1635 Market Street, Philadelphi ~Pennsylvania, on December 23, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
