August 2003

Disciplinary Notices

These notices of imposition of disciplinary sanctions and actions are published pursuant to Rule 3.5(d) of the Washington State Supreme Court Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct, and pursuant to the February 18, 1995, policy statement of the WSBA Board of Governors. For a complete copy of any disciplinary decision, call the Washington State Disciplinary Board at 206-733-5926, leaving the case name, and your name and address.

Disbarred
Charles O. Bonet (WSBA No. 19717, admitted 1990), formerly of Tacoma, was disbarred effective April 1, 2003, by order of the Supreme Court, following a hearing. For additional information, please see In re Bonet, 144 Wn.2d 502, 29 P.2d 1242 (2001). This discipline is based on his offering a prohibited inducement to a witness.
 
Mr. Bonet, a Thurston County prosecutor, was assigned the prosecution of Mr. M. Before the trial, Mr. Y, a defense witness and potential co-conspirator, made conflicting statements about whether he would testify as a witness for the defense. Mr. Y was charged as a co-conspirator before the M trial began. During the trial, Mr. Y sent a message to Mr. Bonet, asking if the charges would be dropped if Mr. Y did not testify for Mr. M. Mr. Bonet spoke to Mr. Y on the telephone and told him that if Mr. Y did not testify, they could “work something out,” and that Mr. Bonet would wait to see what Mr. Y decided. Mr. Bonet told Mr. Y’s lawyer that he had agreed to dismiss the charges if Mr. Y did not testify for Mr. M. Mr. Bonet declined to reduce this agreement to writing.
 
When Mr. M’s lawyer learned that Mr. Y would not testify, he asked the judge to look into the circumstances. Mr. Bonet told the judge that “we have made no offer or inducement to this witness . . . in this matter, concerning this trial.” The judge held an in-camera hearing, during which Mr. Y testified that the final deal was that Mr. Bonet would make the charges go away if Mr. Y took the stand and pleaded the Fifth Amendment. After the hearing, Mr. Bonet dismissed the charges against Mr. Y, and Mr. Y testified for Mr. M. The jury found Mr. M guilty, and the Court of Appeals upheld the decision.
 
Mr. Bonet’s conduct violated RPCs 3.4(b), prohibiting lawyers from falsifying evidence, counseling or assisting a witness to testify falsely, or offering an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law; 8.4(b), prohibiting committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; and 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
 
Sachia Stonefeld Powell and Marsha Matsumoto represented the Bar Association at hearing. Douglas Ende represented the Bar Association on appeal. Robert A. Roden and Robert A. Wright represented Mr. Bonet at hearing. Mr. Bonet represented himself on appeal. The hearing officer was Michael Riggio.

Disbarred
Jason J. McCarty (WSBA No. 15985, admitted 1986), of Olympia, was disbarred effective May 13, 2003, by order of the Supreme Court, following a hearing. This discipline is based on his conduct from 1995 through 2002 involving dishonesty and criminal acts.
 
Matter 1: In July 1995, Mr. McCarty began representing a criminal defendant. Earlier, Ms. C, a friend of the client’s, posted $5,000 bail to obtain his release. Following the hearing, Mr. McCarty asked the court to release the bail money to him. Mr. McCarty told the court that he had known Ms. C for two or three years, that she lived in Aberdeen and was working that day, that she wanted the money released to him, and that half the money belonged to him. Ms. C stated she had never lived in Aberdeen, was unemployed at the time of the hearing, did not know Mr. McCarty, and did not give him authorization to obtain the funds. Mr. McCarty did not give any of the bail funds to Ms. C. Ms. C filed a civil suit against Mr. McCarty for the funds and obtained a judgment, which has been paid in full.
 
Matter 2: On May 24, 2002, The Court of Appeals affirmed Mr. McCarty’s conviction of two counts of money laundering.

Mr. McCarty’s conduct violated RPCs 3.3, prohibiting lawyers from knowingly making false statements of material fact to the tribunal; 1.14, requiring lawyers to pay client funds to the client upon request; and 8.4(b), prohibiting committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
 
Joanne Abelson represented the Bar Association. Dennis L. McCarty and Clifton Johnson represented Mr. McCarty. The hearing officer was Marc Silverman.

Disbarred
Brenda J. Means (WSBA No. 26180, admitted 1996), of Mill Creek, was disbarred effective May 13, 2003, by order of the Supreme Court, following a hearing. This discipline is based on her criminal acts in 1998.
 
In 1995, Ms. Means moved to Washington. A friend, Ms. K, helped Ms. Means by co-signing a loan for moving expenses. Ms. Means received all the proceeds of the loan and was expected to make the payments. Ms. K’s husband paid the loan amount to protect Ms. K’s credit. Ms. Means reimbursed the Ks in 2000.

In February 1998, Ms. Means applied for a credit card using Ms. K’s name and Social Security number, and her own address and phone number. Ms. Means signed Ms. K’s name on the application and requested an additional card for herself. Capital One opened the new account on March 7, 1998. Between March and June, Ms. Means charged approximately $296 on the credit card and made a $100 payment. In June, Ms. K learned of the credit card when a representative asked her why she had not been making payments. In November 1998, Ms. K reported the charges on the card as fraudulent. Capital One determined that Ms. Means had opened the account, and began sending  billing statements in her name. Ms. Means did not respond to these statements.

In March 1998, Ms. Means applied for credit through Associates Investment for a new transmission for her car. She used Ms. K’s name, Social Security number, birth date, and other personal information, but used her own mailing address. In March 1998, Associates Investment opened the new account. Also in March, Ms. Means submitted a letter to the transmission company, purportedly signed by Ms. K, stating that she was Ms. K’s sister and had authorization to use the credit card. The transmission company completed the work on Ms. Means’s car, and she signed Ms. K’s name to the charge slip for $1,582.75; Ms. Means did not make any payments. Ms. K learned of this billing in 1998 when she checked her credit report.

Ms. Means’s conduct violated RPCs 8.4(b), prohibiting committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; and 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and RLD 1.1(a), prohibiting the commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, or that reflects disregard for the rule of law.
 
Marsha Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. Julie Gaisford represented Ms. Means at hearing. The hearing officer was Vernon Harkins.

Disbarred
Kenneth R. Mitchell (WSBA No. 17401, admitted 1987), of Tacoma, was disbarred effective July 8, 2002, by order of the Supreme Court, following a hearing. This discipline is based on his conduct in 1999 and 2000 involving lack of diligence, failure to refund unearned fees, misrepresentation, and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process.
 
Matter 1: In March 2000, Mr. Mitchell agreed to serve as the guardian ad litem (GAL) in a paternity action. On April 11, 2000, the parties sent Mr. Mitchell the relevant documents and a check for $250. On April 19, Mr. Mitchell’s license to practice law was suspended for 60 days. Mr. Mitchell did not complete the investigation or issue the GAL report. He failed to notify the parties of his suspension. The court removed Mr. Mitchell as GAL in the case. He did not refund the parties’ fees or cooperate with the disciplinary investigation in this matter.
 
Matter 2: In 1999, Mr. Mitchell agreed to assist clients in enforcing an oral loan and written promissory note executed by their daughter and former son-in-law. In June 1999, the clients sent Mr. Mitchell $1,000 and provided information about the debtors’ employers and property. Mr. Mitchell filed the clients’ lawsuit, and in December 1999 the court granted them a $25,592.63 default judgment. The clients asked that Mr. Mitchell take immediate actions to collect the judgment, because they believed the son-in-law would try to avoid paying by selling his assets. Mr. Mitchell told the clients that he had filed a lien on the son-in-law’s Snohomish County property. The clients visited the courthouse and discovered that Mr. Mitchell had not filed a lien. Mr. Mitchell scheduled supplemental proceedings for April 11, 2000, but they were continued to April 19, when the debtors retained counsel. The Supreme Court suspended Mr. Mitchell’s license to practice law effective April 19, 2000. Mr. Mitchell did not conduct the supplemental proceeding and did not inform his clients of his suspension. The clients learned of Mr. Mitchell’s suspension from another lawyer in his office and retained substitute counsel. Mr. Mitchell failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation of this matter.
 
Mr. Mitchell’s conduct violated RPCs 8.4 (d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep their clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters; and 1.14(b), requiring lawyers to promptly pay client funds to clients upon request; and RLDs 8.1(c), requiring lawyers to notify their clients of license suspensions; and 2.8, requiring lawyers to cooperate with grievance investigations.
 
Marsha Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. Mr. Mitchell represented himself. The hearing officer was Douglas Dunham.

Disbarred
Stephen L. Palmberg (WSBA No. 3178, admitted 1972), of Grand Coulee, was disbarred effective October 29, 2002, by order of the Supreme Court, following a hearing. This discipline is based on 19 counts of misconduct in 2000 and 2001, involving practicing with a suspended license, lack of diligence, failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process, failing to return unearned fees, and conduct demonstrating unfitness to practice law.
 
Matter 1: In August 2000, Mr. Palmberg agreed to represent a client charged with a criminal offense. He filed a notice of appearance and arranged to meet with witnesses after the client’s arraignment, but failed to appear at either the arraignment hearing or the status conference. The morning of the conference, Mr. Palmberg called the client’s father, stating he was “dropping the case,” so the court appointed a public defender to represent the client. Mr. Palmberg continued to work on the client’s case, contacting the prosecutor and witnesses after the public defender was appointed. The public defender remained on the case. Mr. Palmberg told the client’s father he would refund the attorney’s fees to the client; however, he did not do so.
 
Matter 2: In October 2000, Mr. Palmberg agreed to represent a client in a tribal court guardianship and custody matter. Mr. Palmberg filed an agreed motion for continuance and then failed to appear for the rescheduled hearing. The issues at the November 2000 hearing were resolved against the client. Mr. Palmberg did not contact the client until January 2001. Mr. Palmberg also represented the client at a temporary custody hearing, but failed to call any witnesses who could have been helpful to her case. At the hearing, Mr. Palmberg told the court that he had represented the opposing party on unrelated matters. Mr. Palmberg did not respond to opposing counsel’s letters or calls about the conflict of interest. Opposing counsel filed a motion to disqualify Mr. Palmberg. Mr. Palmberg filed a notice of concurrence the morning of the motion and did not attend.

Matter 3: Between July 1999 and May 2002, Mr. Palmberg commingled his personal funds with his client funds in his IOLTA account. He deposited earned fees and other personal funds into his trust account. Mr. Palmberg did not produce IOLTA records requested by disciplinary counsel, disbursed funds to a client that belonged to another client, and also disbursed client funds to himself.
 
Matter 4: The Supreme Court suspended Mr. Palmberg’s license to practice law in July 2001 because he had failed to pay his license fee. In August, Mr. Palmberg spoke with a WSBA employee, who verified his suspension. After that conversation, Mr. Palmberg continued to practice law and failed to comply with the duties on suspension required by RLD Title 8. In six cases, Mr. Palmberg either failed to tell clients of his license suspension, met with clients, appeared in court, drafted documents, or accepted money for work he could not perform.
 
In six additional matters, Mr. Palmberg failed to diligently represent his clients and adequately communicate with clients. In some cases, Mr. Palmberg failed to refund unearned fees.
 
Mr. Palmberg’s conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4, requiring lawyers to reasonably communicate with clients about the status of their matters; 1.5, requiring attorneys’ fees to be reasonable; 1.15, requiring lawyers to return unearned fees when the representation is terminated; 1.9, prohibiting lawyers from representing a client in the same or a substantially related matter if the client’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of a former client, unless the former client consents in writing after a full disclosure; 5.5, prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law; and 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and RLDs 2.8, requiring lawyers to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation; 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3, requiring lawyers to discontinue practice and provide notice to clients, courts, and opposing counsel when the lawyer’s license to practice law is suspended; and 1.1(p), prohibiting conduct demonstrating unfitness to practice law.
 
Jean McElroy represented the Bar Association. Mr. Palmberg represented himself. The hearing officer was Joseph M. Mano Jr.

Disbarred
Jeffrey B. Ranes (WSBA No.7732, admitted 1977), of Montesano, was disbarred effective May 8, 2002, by order of the Supreme Court, following a default hearing. This discipline is based on his conduct during 1998 through 2000, involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation.
 
Matter 1: In January 1995, Mr. Ranes agreed to represent a client in a personal-injury claim based on a 1993 car accident. In October and December 1997, the insurance company’s lawyer sent Mr. Ranes a list of potential arbitrators. Mr. Ranes did not respond to these letters until June 1998. In November 1998, the case settled, and the insurance company issued a check to Mr. Ranes and the client. The check, containing a false endorsement for the client, was deposited into Mr. Ranes’s trust account. Mr. Ranes’s office returned a signed release to the insurance company, but the client’s signature on the release was not genuine. Mr. Ranes instructed his secretary to notarize the false signature.

On January 22, 1999, three days prior to expiration of the statute of limitations, Mr. Ranes filed a complaint against the insurance company to compel payment of his client’s medical bills. Mr. Ranes either directed or allowed his secretary to sign the client’s name on the complaint and falsely notarize the signature. Mr. Ranes, without the client’s knowledge or permission, agreed to dismiss the lawsuit if the insurance company agreed to consider the client’s claims. Mr. Ranes failed to return the client’s phone calls during the representation.

Matter 2: On November 17, 2000, the Disciplinary Board approved Mr. Ranes’s stipulation to reprimand and restitution in an unrelated matter. Mr. Ranes agreed to pay the client $750 in restitution no later than 30 days after the board approved the stipulation. He also agreed to pay the Bar Association $1,500 to cover costs and expenses, within 30 days. Mr. Ranes did not pay the restitution or costs as agreed. He also failed to respond to the Bar Association’s requests for an explanation of his failure to make the payments.
 
Mr. Ranes’s conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters and explain matters to the extent necessary to allow clients to make informed decisions regarding the representation; 1.2(a), requiring lawyers to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of the representation; 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; 8.4(b), prohibiting committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer; 8.4(a), prohibiting knowingly assisting or inducing another to violate the RPCs; and 5.3, requiring lawyers having direct supervisory authority over nonlawyer assistants to make reasonable efforts to ensure that they comply with the RPCs.
 
Jonathan Burke represented the Bar Association. Mr. Ranes represented himself. The hearing officer was Julian Dewell.

Disbarred
R. Wayne Torneby (WSBA No. 12431, admitted 1982), of Longview, was disbarred effective June 19, 2002, by order of the Supreme Court, following a default hearing. This discipline is based on his abandoning his practice without notice to his clients and failing to file required Labor and Industries (L&I) reports in 2001.
 
Matter 1: In 2000, Mr. Torneby represented a client in an L&I matter. In October 2000, L&I began sending the client’s $1,786.65 pension checks to Mr. Torneby. In April 2001, Mr. Torneby signed his name and the client’s name, deposited the check and deducted his fee, but did not send any funds to the client. When the she tried to contact Mr. Torneby, she learned that his phone had been disconnected. Mr. Torneby abandoned his practice without notice to the client. Mr. Torneby’s license to practice law was suspended in June 2001 for failure to pay his license fee.
 
Matter 2: In 2001, Mr. Torneby represented two clients in an L&I matter and a related personal-injury action. In February 2001, the clients arrived at the office for a meeting and were told that Mr. Torneby had closed his office and left no forwarding address. Mr. Torneby did not appear for the clients’ L&I hearing. The court dismissed the clients’ civil case for lack of prosecution. They did not learn of the dismissal until they reviewed the court file.
 
Matter 3: In 1997, Mr. Torneby knowingly ceased reporting his employees’ payroll and hours to L&I. He also stopped paying industrial-insurance premiums. RCW 51.48.020(b) makes knowingly failing to report employees’ payroll or hours to L&I with the intent to evade determination and payment a felony.
 
Mr. Torneby’s conduct violated RPCs 1.14, requiring lawyers to preserve client property; and 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; and RLDs 2.8, requiring lawyers to cooperate with disciplinary investigations; and 1.1(a), prohibiting committing acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, corruption, . . . or other acts reflecting disregard for the rule of law.

Joanne Abelson represented the Bar Association. Mr. Torneby represented himself. The hearing officer was Marc Silverman.

Suspended
Richard A. Alcorn (WSBA No. 7973, admitted 1977), of Phoenix, AZ, was reciprocally suspended for 30 days, based on a suspension order from the Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Arizona. The Washington State Supreme Court’s order of reciprocal discipline was effective February 11, 2003. This discipline was based on his lack of diligence and communication with a client, and failing to promptly reduce a contingent-fee agreement to writing, during 1997 through 1999.
 
In January 1997, Mr. Alcorn agreed to represent a client who was hit by a car in a crosswalk. In May 1997, Mr. Alcorn filed a lawsuit on the client’s behalf; however, he failed to file a required disclosure statement or serve answers to the defendant’s interrogatories and requests for production. In February 1998, a partner in Mr. Alcorn’s firm issued a memo instructing Mr. Alcorn to take no further action on the client’s case, unless Mr. Alcorn prepared time slips and the client made payments. Mr. Alcorn prepared time slips and continued to do minimal work for the client, including filing a late list of witnesses and exhibits. On May 14, 1998, the trial judge granted the defendant’s motion to strike Mr. Alcorn’s list of witnesses and exhibits.   

On June 7, 1999, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the client’s lawsuit. Over the next two months, Mr. Alcorn claimed to have performed extensive work on a motion to reinstate the lawsuit, but he never filed the motion. In mid-August 1999, the client retained substitute counsel. The court denied the client’s motion to reinstate the lawsuit. Substitute counsel then filed a malpractice suit against Mr. Alcorn, which settled for a substantial amount in December 2000.
 
Mr. Alcorn’s conduct violated ERs 1.3 and 3.2, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients and expedite the clients’ litigation; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and provide sufficient information for clients to make informed decisions regarding their representation; 1.5, requiring contingent-fee agreements to be in writing; and 3.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from knowingly violating ethics rules.
 
Felice Congalton represented the Bar Association. Mr. Alcorn represented himself.

Suspended
Christopher D. Browne (WSBA No. 24302, admitted 1994), of Tacoma, was suspended for 18 months effective March 7, 2003, by order of the Supreme Court, following a hearing. This discipline is based on his failure to preserve client funds in 2000. (Mr. Browne is to be distinguished from Christopher S. Brown of Seattle.)
 
In June 2000, Mr. Browne received a client’s $6,107.64 worker-compensation check. Mr. Browne took $1,250 in cash and deposited the remaining funds into his trust account. In July 2000, Mr. Browne removed $5,350 from his trust account for his own purposes. By August 3, the balance in Mr. Browne’s trust account was negative and he had not disbursed the client’s worker-compensation payment. In September 2000, Mr. Browne issued a $5,100 check to his client.
 
Mr. Browne’s conduct violated RPCs 1.14, requiring lawyers to preserve client funds; 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and 8.4(b), prohibiting committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.

Michael Deleo and Leslie Allen represented the Bar Association. Michael Austin Stewart represented Mr. Browne. The hearing officer was Waldo Stone.

Suspended
John L. McKean (WSBA No.13294, admitted 1983), of Moses Lake, was suspended for six months effective March 26, 2003, by order of the Supreme Court, following a hearing. For additional information, please see In re McKean, 148 Wn.2d 849, 64 P.3d 1226 (2003). This discipline is based on his business transactions with his clients and failure to properly administer his trust account in 1997.
 
In 1997, Mr. McKean agreed to represent Mr. and Mrs. M in a Chapter 12 bankruptcy. In July 1997, Mr. McKean learned that his clients had not been filing required reports. He believed that the court would involuntarily dismiss the clients’ bankruptcy. Mr. McKean advised the clients to dismiss the bankruptcy and form a corporation to protect them from creditors. The clients asked Mr. McKean for help managing their farm and for financial assistance. Mr. McKean, agreeing to take an ownership interest in the clients’ business, took a 51 percent interest in the business; the clients retained 49 percent. In June and July 1997, Mr. McKean wrote four checks totaling $11,128.25 from his trust account for the clients’ benefit. The amount was charged to an estate for which Mr. McKean was the personal representative with nonintervention powers. Mr. McKean did not notify the estate of this loan or prepare any documentation of the terms. After receiving financial help, the clients refused to dismiss the bankruptcy, so Mr. McKean did not perfect the corporation, but continued to treat it as a separate entity.
  
In November 1997, realizing that he would be unable to recoup the “loan” of estate funds, Mr. McKean borrowed $23,000 and reimbursed the estate account. The clients retained new counsel, who contacted the Bar Association. The Bar Association auditor found that Mr. McKean’s trust account had errors, missing records, and, at times, a negative balance. Mr. McKean also used his trust account as his general business account for approximately two weeks.
 
Mr. McKean’s conduct violated RPCs 1.14, requiring lawyers to preserve client funds deposited into the lawyer’s trust account, keep the lawyer’s funds separate from the client funds, and maintain complete records of funds in the lawyer’s possession; 1.7(b), prohibiting lawyers from representing clients if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibility to another client, a third party, or the lawyer’s own interests; and 1.8(a), prohibiting a lawyer from entering a business transaction with a client, unless the transaction is fair and reasonable, the client consents, and the client is given a reasonable opportunity to seek independent advice.
 
Philip E. Cutler represented the Bar Association at hearing. Douglas Ende represented the Bar Association on appeal. Leland Ripley represented Mr. McKean at the hearing. Mr. McKean represented himself on appeal. The hearing officer was J. Donald Curran.

Suspended
Kenneth R. Mitchell (WSBA No. 17401, admitted 1987), of Tacoma, was suspended for two years effective May 31, 2001, by order of the Supreme Court approving a stipulation. This discipline is based on his conduct during 1998 through 2000, involving lack of diligence, misrepresentation, failure to protect client funds, and failure to cooperate with the discipline process.
 
Matter 1: In August 1998, Ms. F retained Mr. Mitchell to represent her in a marriage-dissolution action. Approximately one week later, Mr. Mitchell informed Ms. F that her husband had been served with the pleadings and that he had issued subpoenas for financial information. In March 1999, Mr. Mitchell told the client he was waiting for a trial date and that the matter would be finalized soon. On May 13, Ms. F learned that the dissolution had never been filed. Mr. Mitchell never filed the dissolution with the court, nor served the client’s husband. He also failed to respond to the client’s request that he refund her attorney’s fees. Mr. Mitchell failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation of this matter.
 
Matter 2: Mr. and Ms. M retained Mr. Mitchell to defend them in a lawsuit. After the arbitration, the Ms told Mr. Mitchell they wanted to appeal the decision if it was not favorable. When the arbitrator issued his decision, Mr. Mitchell did not inform the clients. In November 1998, the plaintiff’s attorney requested that the arbitrator increase the attorney’s fees and costs award. Mr. Mitchell did not submit a response to this request, and, on December 23, 1998, the arbitrator increased the amount of attorney’s fees. Mr. Mitchell did not inform the Ms of the arbitrator’s award. On January 13, 1999, the plaintiff’s attorney filed a motion for entry of judgment. Mr. Mitchell did not inform the Ms of the motion, and, on January 22, 1999, the court entered the judgment against them. On April 16, the Ms consulted with another attorney, who negotiated a settlement with the plaintiff’s lawyer. Mr. Mitchell failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation of this matter.
 
Matter 3: On April 6, 2000, Mr. D retained Mr. Mitchell to obtain an emergency restraining order. Between April 10 and April 13, Mr. D and/or his wife left several messages at Mr. Mitchell’s office, and Mr. Mitchell assured them he would obtain the restraining order by April 14. Mr. Mitchell did not obtain the restraining order or file any papers with the court requesting the order. On April 14, Mr. Mitchell received an order from the Supreme Court suspending him for 60 days effective April 19, 2000. He immediately stopped work on Mr. D’s case, but did not inform Mr. D. The Ds continued to leave messages for Mr. Mitchell, but received no response. On April 27, Ms. D received a call from another attorney informing her that Mr. Mitchell had been suspended. Ms. D contacted the court and learned that Mr. Mitchell had never filed the papers seeking the restraining order. On May 2, 2000, Mr. Mitchell sent the Ds a letter notifying them of his suspension. On May 4, Mr. D wrote to Mr. Mitchell and requested a refund of his $750, but Mr. Mitchell did not respond. Mr. Mitchell did not cooperate with the disciplinary investigation of this matter.
 
Matter 4: In August 1997, Mr. R retained Mr. Mitchell to represent him in a temporary-parenting-plan modification. Mr. Mitchell asked the client to pay $130 for medical records, but never requested the records. Mr. Mitchell prepared the parenting plan and obtained the parties’ signatures on September 26, 1997, but never filed the temporary plan with the court.
 
In February 2000, Mr. R asked Mr. Mitchell to make the parenting-plan modifications permanent. Mr. Mitchell prepared a petition for modification and obtained the parties’ signatures on March 3, 2000, but never filed it with the court. On April 19, Mr. Mitchell’s license to practice law was suspended. Mr. Mitchell did not notify his client of his suspension. Mr. R contacted the court and learned that Mr. Mitchell had not filed either the 1997 or the 2000 modification papers. When the client called Mr. Mitchell’s office, he learned of his suspension. Mr. Mitchell assured Mr. R that he had filed the modification papers. Mr. Mitchell did not refund Mr. R’s attorney’s fees or costs from the 1997 representation, or provide him with an accounting. Mr. Mitchell failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation of this matter.
 
Mr. Mitchell’s conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters; 1.5, requiring attorneys’ fees to be reasonable; 1.14(b)(2) and (3), requiring lawyers to protect client property and maintain records of client funds; 1.14(b)(4), requiring lawyers to promptly deliver funds to the client if requested; 1.15(d), requiring lawyers to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests upon withdrawal; 3.2, requiring lawyers to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation; and 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and RLDs 2.8, requiring lawyers to cooperate with the disciplinary process; and 8.1, requiring suspended lawyers to notify clients.
 
Marsha Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. Mr. Mitchell represented himself.

Reprimanded
Janet A. Irons (WSBA No. 12687, admitted 1982), of Bellevue, received a reprimand on September 13, 2002, based on a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board. This discipline was based on her conduct during 1998 through 2000, involving lack of diligence, advancing financial assistance to a client, negligent misrepresentation, and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.
 
Matter 1: In 1998, Ms. Irons filed a complaint against her client’s former employer, asking for past-due sales commissions. Ms. Irons did not timely answer the defendant’s discovery requests, and failed to appear at the defendant’s motion to compel answers to discovery. The court ordered that Ms. Irons’s client provide discovery within 10 days, and imposed $750 in attorney’s fees. When Ms. Irons failed to comply with the court order to provide discovery, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. Ms. Irons, however, told the clients that the lawsuit was still pending.
 
Matter 2: In June 1998, Ms. Irons agreed to represent a mother in the probate of her daughter’s estate. Ms. Irons maintained some of the estate funds in her trust account. In January 2000, Mr. Irons wrote the client a $3,000 check; however, there was only $1,133.60 in the trust account. In February, Ms. Irons paid another estate beneficiary $2,100. The estate had no funds in the trust account at this time. Ms. Irons knowingly advanced her own funds to cover these estate disbursements.
 
Matter 3: Ms. Irons failed to cooperate with disciplinary counsel’s investigation of this matter. The Supreme Court interimly suspended her license to practice law for approximately 28 days. After the suspension, Ms. Irons cooperated with the investigation.
  
Ms. Irons’s conduct violated RPCs 1.1, requiring lawyers to provide competent representation to clients; 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and 1.8(e), prohibiting lawyers from advancing financial assistance to clients; and RLD 2.8(a) and (b), requiring lawyers to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
 
Rebecca Neal represented the Bar Association. Robert Wayne represented Ms. Irons.

Back table on contents >>