An experienced attorney at a large law firm was put in charge of a newly hired junior associate. The firm opened a new satellite office in another city to take over the family law practice of a retiring lawyer. Because the associate had briefly practiced on his own, he was placed in the new office by himself. The experienced attorney did not visit the new office or inquire about any pending matters. Although the associate didn't tell anyone at the firm, he felt overwhelmed by his duties at the new office and knowingly stalled several adoption cases for over a year. Is the experienced attorney subject to discipline?

Yes, because the experienced attorney did not visit the office or inquire about pending matters. Under Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.1, a supervisory lawyer must make "reasonable efforts" to ensure that subordinate lawyers comply with the Model Rules. Here, the associate knowingly stalled several adoption cases for over a year, a clear violation of Model Rule 1.3's requirement that a lawyer "act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client." Importantly, the experienced attorney did not visit the office or inquire about pending matters, which clearly shows that he made absolutely no effort, let alone a reasonable one, to ensure that the associate complied with the Model Rules.

The Model Rule of Professional Conduct 5.1 requires a supervisory lawyer to make "reasonable efforts" to ensure that subordinate lawyers comply with the Model Rules. In this scenario, the experienced attorney failed to visit the new office or inquire about any pending matters, indicating a lack of effort to supervise the junior associate. This failure is exacerbated by the associate's deliberate delay in handling adoption cases, which violates Model Rule 1.3's requirement for reasonable diligence and promptness.