In the Matter of John Michael Bosnak, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2017-000606
Submitted April 4, 2017
M. Coggiola, Disciplinary Counsel, and Ericka M. Williams,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for Office
of Disciplinary Counsel.
Michael Bosnak, of Columbia, pro se.
attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into an Agreement for
Discipline by Consent (Agreement) pursuant to Rule 21 of the
Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (RLDE contained in
Rule 413 of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (SCACR).
In the Agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents
to the imposition of a public reprimand or definite
suspension not to exceed one (1) year. Respondent requests
that any period of suspension be imposed retroactively to
February 2, 2016, the date of his interim suspension from the
practice of law. In the Matter of Bosnak, 415 S.C.
332, 782 S.E.2d 123 (2016). Respondent further agrees to pay
the costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of
this matter within thirty (30) days of the imposition of
discipline and to complete the Legal Ethics and Practice
Program Ethics School and Trust Account School within one (1)
year of the imposition of discipline. We accept the Agreement
and suspend respondent from the practice of law in this state
for one (1) year, retroactive to the date of his interim
suspension. In addition, we order respondent to pay the costs
incurred in the investigation and prosecution of this matter
and to complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics
School and Trust Account School as specified in the
conclusion of this opinion. The facts, as set forth in the
Agreement, are as follows.
represented a client in a probate matter following the death
of the client's son. The client was appointed as Personal
Representative of the estate.
November 26, 2008, respondent brought a wrongful death suit
on behalf of the estate against a police department and other
named parties in federal court. On April 23, 2010, the
defendants in the lawsuit moved to dismiss the case for
failure to prosecute. In July of 2010, the federal court
dismissed the lawsuit for failure to prosecute stating that
respondent did not respond to the motion to dismiss on behalf
of the estate.
filed a motion to reconsider. In the order denying the
motion, the federal court stated: "The case has been
marked by numerous delays on the part of plaintiff's
counsel, who failed to file documents in a timely fashion,
failed to respond to any discovery requests except for
providing the defendants with one document, failed to respond
to the defendants' motion to compel discovery responses,
failed to respond to the Court's order regarding that
discovery, and failed to respond to the defendants'
motion to dismiss."
client hired an attorney (Complainant) to gather information
about the dismissal of the case. The Complainant contacted
the probate court and scheduled a status conference in the
case for February 4, 2011. Respondent was served with notice
of the status conference but failed to attend.
February 8, 2011, the client, as Personal Representative,
issued a subpoena to respondent for documents on February 16,
2011, and for his testimony on February 23, 2011. Respondent
failed to comply with the subpoenaed requests for documents.
On the morning of the scheduled deposition, respondent left a
message at Complainant's office stating that he would not
be attending the deposition because he was in trial in
General Sessions Court.
was sent another subpoena for March 18, 2011. One minute
prior to the deposition, respondent faxed a motion to quash
the deposition as the client had not waived attorney-client
response to the motion to quash, the Personal Representative
filed a motion to compel, sanction and hold respondent in
contempt. The hearing was scheduled for June 1, ...