On Friday, May 5, 2023, the Florida Bar filed a complaint against attorney Leon Menas Boyajan, II for failing to respond to the client’s repeated inquiries regarding the status of his case. The case is entitled “The Florida Bar v. Leon Menas Boyajan, II.”

The charges cited Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.2(a), 4-1.3, 4-1.4(a), 4-1.4(b), 4-8.4(d), 3-4.3, 4-1.3, 4-3.2, 4-8.4(c) which states:

A lawyer must abide by a client’s decision on whether to settle a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer must abide by the client’s decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify.

A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.

Duty to Explain Matters to Client. A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent r easo na bly necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

A lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or her lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic.

The standards of professional conduct required of members of the bar are not limited to the observance of rules and avoidance of prohibited acts, and the enumeration of ce rt ai n categories of misconduct as constituting grounds for discipline are not – inclusive v e nor is the failure to specify any particular act of misconduct be construed as tolerance of the act of misconduct. The commission by a lawyer of any act that is un la wf ul or contrary to honesty and justice may constitute a cause for discipline whether t h e act is committed in the course of the lawyer’s relations as a lawyer or otherwise, whether committed within Florida or outside the state of Florida, and whether the act is a felony or a misdemeanor.

A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.

A lawyer shall not engage in cond u ct involving d is honesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, except that it shall not be professional misconduct for a lawyer for a criminal law enforcement agency or regulatory agency to advise others about or to supervise another in an undercover investigation unless prohibited by law or rule, and it shall not be professional misconduct for a lawyer employed in a capacity other than as a lawyer by a criminal law enforcement agency or regulatory agency to participate in an undercover investigation unless prohibited by law or rule.

The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.

On count one, the respondent allegedly failed to respond to the client’s repeated inquiries regarding the status of his case. Respondent also failed to timely transmit pleadings and court orders to same and failed to inform the latter of his discovery obligations.

The filing states:

“Respondent failed to inform Mr. Kumpf of the stipulated order as well as the obligations in it resulting in Mr. Kumpf failing to pay the $500.00 sanction. However, on November 28, 2022, a Satisfaction of Judgment was filed in the case acknowledging that full payment of the $500.00 had been received. On December 23, 2022, the defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. due to the plaintiff’s continuing failure to provide the discovery. The defendants’ motion also sought the dismissal of the lawsuit and to award a judgment of $500.00 in attorney’s fees.”

The respondent’s failure to diligently pursue litigation on behalf of the client is noted as count two of the allegations. It is alleged that the respondent did not actively engage in legal actions necessary to advance the client’s case.

The filing continues:

“On April 7, 2016, the respondent filed a Response to the Notice of Lack of Prosecution and Order Setting Hearing wherein he stated, among other things, that the “lack of prosecution is as result of mi st ak e, negligence or mistake in that the matter was not calendered (sic) as a result of confusion on the part of the undersigned’s office with an employee passing away and the undersigned’s civil legal assi stant changing from full time to part-time and that part-time assistant’s needs to assist her husband in his medical needs through the VA.” Respondent also filed a request to produce on April 7, 2016. Despite receiving no response to the request to produce, the respondent failed to follow up on the request and did not seek court interventions in obtaining the requested documents at that time.”

Based on the foregoing reasons and the Rules Regulating Florida Bar as mentioned above, the Florida Bar requested the court that the respondent be disciplined accordingly.

The request states:

“WHEREFORE, The Florida Bar prays respondent will be appropriately disciplined in accordance with the provisions of the Rules”

Mr. Boyakan II practices in Inverness, Florida. He is licensed in Florida. His info can be found on avvo.com.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.