On or about January 31, 2003, a woman retained Attorney Guy W. Fredel as her third attorney in her divorce action. The client hired Fredel in part to complete a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) on her behalf during post-divorce proceedings, so that she would receive payments from her ex-husband’s pension fund. She also hired him to handle a foreclosure action on her home, brought by the law firm who previously represented her in her divorce.

Fredel prepared a draft QDRO on February 3, 2003. The client claims that Fredel told her in January 2003 that she would have a check from her ex-husband’s pension by July of that year. Fredel responds that the pension plan provided that no distributions for employees with more than $15,000 in the pension plan would be made until at least March 31 of the fifth plan year following the end of the plan year that an employee had terminated his or her employment with the company. Therefore, as the client’s husband had terminated his employment on September 9, 1999 and the expected distribution was in excess of $100,000, the client would not have been entitled to a distribution until March 31, 2005. According to Fredel, on or about February 12, 2003, he spoke with a representative of the pension plan about this very issue while the client was in his office. Thereafter, Fredel told the client that he would see if he could get a hardship distribution for her from the pension plan, but that he did not know if such a distribution was possible.

Fredel did nothing more on the QDRO until February 2005. The client was aware that the funds were disbursed from the pension fund only in March of each year. When she did not receive the July 2003 payout, she assumed Fredel had missed the March 2003 deadline and she would have to wait until the March 2004 payout period.

Upset with his handling of the QDRO and foreclosure matters, as discussed below, in February 2005, the client contacted Fredel and expressed her concern. Fredel thereafter filed the QDRO on February 23, 2005, after notice from the pension provider that the client’s share of the pension would not be held after March 31, 2005. The funds were disbursed to the client in July 2005.

On February 4, 2003, Fredel filed an Answer and Notice of Appearance in the foreclosure action. A scheduling conference was held on October 8, 2003. The trial was scheduled for March 29, 2004. Plaintiff’s counsel mailed a copy of the scheduling order to Fredel on November 25, 2003. Also on November 25, 2003, plaintiff’s counsel sent a formal offer of settlement to Fredel. On December 2, 2003, Fredel sent a letter to the client, enclosing a copy of the offer of settlement and a notice of trial. The client does not recall receiving the notice of trial. In his letter, Fredel asked the client to accept or decline the offer in writing. The client did not sign or return the form.

On February 13, 2004, plaintiff’s counsel sent interrogatories and requests for production of documents to Fredel. The responses to such requests were due by March 20, 2004. Fredel did not send these discovery requests to the client until March 19, 2004.

The client claims to have made numerous telephone calls to Fredel in early March 2004 and he did not respond. Because the client was going on vacation from March 17- 27, 2004, she attempted to contact Fredel on March 16 so that she could meet with him before she left. Fredel claims to have had no messages from her. On March 26, 2004, Fredel sent a letter to the client, reminding her to send the responses. When she returned from vacation on March 27, 2004, she found she had received the package from Fredel with plaintiff’s discovery requests.

The client then contacted Fredel, and was informed the trial had been continued. Fredel told the client to provide him with the responses to the discovery requests. The client claims to have made several attempts to meet with Fredel in April 2004 in order to provide her responses, but he did not return her calls. The client did not provide the responses to Fredel. Fredel did not make further attempts to obtain the information from the client and he did not request an extension of time to respond to the discovery requests.

On July 16, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. Fredel received the motion, but did not send it to the client or inform her of it. Fredel believed that, because she had not sent the responses to the discovery requests, the client had given up on the case. Fredel did not respond to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. On August 19, 2004, the court issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion and, on August 25, 2004, there was an entry of judgment against the client. Fredel never informed her of the summary judgment or provided her a copy of the judgment.