December 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
Matthew J. Dever (WSBA No. 24193, admitted 1994), of Puyallup, was disbarred by order of the Supreme Court, effective March 26, 2003, following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2000 and 2001 involving lack of diligence and communication with several clients, failure to preserve client funds, and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process.
Matter 1: Mr. Dever represented the Washington collection clients of a California law firm. In December 2000, the firm terminated Mr. Dever's employment and he agreed to complete his pending cases. In April 2001, the firm discovered a judgment entered against one of the clients Mr. Dever was responsible for handling. Mr. Dever could have obtained a default judgment, but delayed, allowing defendant's counsel to file a notice of appearance, answer, and counterclaims. Mr. Dever failed to respond to defendant's discovery requests. Mr. Dever also failed to appear for defendant's motion for summary judgment, during which the court entered a $15,600 judgment against the client. After several unsuccessful attempts to contact Mr. Dever, the firm retained new counsel, who filed a motion to set aside the judgment. The court denied the motion. The firm discovered that Mr. Dever had not filed complaints and other pleadings in other client matters assigned to him.
Matter 2: In 2000, Mr. Dever agreed to represent a landlord in an eviction. Mr. Dever filed the unlawful-detainer action, and the defendant filed a counterclaim. The court ordered the tenant to make $1,000 monthly payments to the landlord, pending resolution of the counterclaim. Opposing counsel sent Mr. Dever the payments for March through July 2001. Initially, Mr. Dever did not forward any of these payments to his client. After the client retained new counsel, Mr. Dever sent him one monthly payment. The client's new counsel subpoenaed Mr. Dever to testify at a hearing regarding the four missing checks. Mr. Dever failed to appear, and the court ordered him to appear at a continued hearing. Mr. Dever failed to appear at the continued hearing.
Matter 3: In July 2001, a client retained Mr. Dever to collect a judgment. The client paid Mr. Dever $70. Mr. Dever took no action on the client's case and moved out of his office without leaving a forwarding address or telephone number. Mr. Dever failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation in all three of these matters.
Mr. Dever'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; and 1.14, requiring lawyers to keep complete records of client funds and disburse them promptly upon request; and ELCs 1.5 and 5.3(e), requiring lawyers to cooperate with the disciplinary process.
Jonathan Burke represented the Bar Association. Mr. Dever represented himself. The hearing officer was Ronald A. Roberts.
Disbarred
Robert H. Lewis (WSBA No. 23635, admitted 1994), of Tacoma, was disbarred by order of the Supreme Court, effective March 26, 2003, following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2001, involving abandoning his practice without notice to his clients, failing to disburse client funds upon request, lack of diligence, and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary process.
Matter 1: In May 2001, Mr. Lewis received a $4,152 settlement check for an incarcerated client. He gave the client $100, disbursed $150 to himself, and deposited the rest in his trust account. In June and July 2001, Mr. Lewis used client funds from his trust account for his personal expenses, writing checks to Safeway, Top Foods, and Walmart, among others. Mr. Lewis was not able to pay the client her settlement funds and gave her a promissory note. Mr. Lewis did not pay the client the promised funds. Mr. Lewis failed to cooperate with the disciplinary process, including the trust-account audit.
Matter 2: In March 2001, Mr. Lewis agreed to represent a client in a marriage-dissolution action. In March, the client asked Mr. Lewis to prepare temporary orders. Mr. Lewis prepared the pleadings in May and set a hearing for June. Mr. Lewis later cancelled the hearing due to his own "medical emergency." Mr. Lewis took no further action on the client's case and filed a notice of withdrawal in September 2001.
Mr. Lewis's conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep their clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters; 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and 1.14, requiring lawyers to keep complete records of client funds and to promptly disburse funds to clients upon request; and RLDs 2.8, requiring lawyers to promptly comply with requests for information during the disciplinary process; and 4.10(g), requiring lawyers to attend disciplinary hearings if given a notice to attend.
Anthony Butler represented the Bar Association. Mr. Lewis represented himself. The hearing officer was Lish Whitson.
Disbarred
Steven C. Miller (WSBA No. 6234, admitted 1975), of Cheney, was disbarred by order of the Supreme Court, effective April 24, 2003, following a hearing. For additional information, please see In re Miller, 149 Wn.2d 262 (2003). This discipline was based on conduct during 1992 through 1994, involving drafting a will naming himself as beneficiary, entering a business transaction with a client, and dishonesty. (Mr. Miller is to be distinguished from Steven A. Miller and Steven S. Miller, both of Seattle, Steven J. Miller of Tamarac, FL, Stephen R. Miller of Lake Oswego, OR, and Stephen W. Miller of Golden, CO.)
In 1982, Mr. Miller began representing a 74-year-old client. He drafted a will and power of attorney for the client, and assisted her when she wanted to leave a nursing home. By the summer of 1991, Mr. Miller was stopping by the client's home frequently to bring food, fill her insulin syringes, and provide companionship. In September 1991, the client asked Mr. Miller to draft a new will for her, naming himself as residual beneficiary. Mr. Miller and his secretary prepared the will. Mr. Miller arranged for the client to meet with two other lawyers, who reviewed the will with her and witnessed her signature. In May 1992 and February 1993, the client requested changes to her will. Mr. Miller and another lawyer drafted these changes, and the other lawyer witnessed the client's signature.
In March 1993, Mr. Miller arranged for the client to add his name to her $192,000 certificate of deposit (CD). Mr. Miller used the client's CD as collateral to obtain a loan. Mr. Miller prepared a 30-year note and mortgage for the $192,000, agreeing to repay the amount at below market-rate interest, but did not record the mortgage. In July 1993, Mr. Miller cashed out the client's CD, paid off his line of credit, and deposited the remaining funds in his personal bank account. Mr. Miller did not discuss the conflicts of interest with his client or obtain a written waiver.
In March 1994, Mr. Miller applied for a credit-union loan. On the application, Mr. Miller did not list the mortgage to his client. He also signed a deed of trust, which, when recorded, took a superior position to the client's unrecorded mortgage. Mr. Miller claims that, at this time, the client forgave the $189,477 remaining on the loan from the CD funds. Also at this time, the client became ill. In June 1994, Mr. Miller obtained a doctor's certificate of disability, but did not notify the client's family. The client died on or about October 18, 1994. Mr. Miller began probating her estate that day, obtaining letters testamentary, and transferring assets to his personal accounts.
In October 1994, family members filed a will contest. In October 1995, the court set aside the client's will, due to undue influence by Mr. Miller, and ordered him to return $195,891 to the estate. During the will contest appeal, Mr. Miller filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Mr. Miller paid the estate $181,770 prior to the petition. He had not made any additional payments at the time of the court's decision.
Mr. Miller's conduct violated RPCs 1.8(a), prohibiting entering a business transaction with a client, unless the terms are fair and reasonable, and the client consents in writing after a full disclosure; 1.8(c), prohibiting lawyers from drafting instruments giving the lawyer substantial gifts, including testamentary gifts; and 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Jeffrey Tilden, Franklin Cordell, and Linda Eide represented the Bar Association. Clinton J. Henderson represented Mr. Miller. The hearing officer was William E. Fitzharris Jr.
Suspended
Brian T. Butler (WSBA No.15529, admitted 1985), of Spokane, was suspended for 18 months by order of the Supreme Court, effective December 5, 2002, following a stipulation. This discipline is based on his conduct between 1999 and 2001, involving failure to supervise a nonlawyer assistant, failure to comply with the trust-account requirements, lack of diligence and communication, and misrepresentation.
Matter 1: In early April 2001, Mr. Butler represented a client in a criminal matter. The client told Mr. Butler that her pretrial hearing was set for May 1. Mr. Butler did not file a notice of appearance, contact the prosecutor, or answer his client's phone calls. On April 18, 2001, the client retained substitute counsel and asked that Mr. Butler refund her $1,500 nonrefundable retainer. Mr. Butler did not refund her payment.
Matter 2: In November 2000, Mr. Butler agreed to represent a client in a child-support modification action. In November, the client paid a $1,000 advance fee deposit, which Mr. Butler directed his staff to deposit into his general account. At this time, the client had paid all amounts previously billed. Mr. Butler withdrew from the client's case in January 2001, billing the client 1.5 hours at $225 per hour for preparing the notice of intent to withdraw. Mr. Butler's nonlawyer assistant prepared the notice. Mr. Butler did not refund any fees to the client.
Matter 3: In April 2001, Mr. Butler represented the landlord in an eviction proceeding. On the morning of the show-cause hearing, Mr. Butler told the client he had an emergency hearing and could not appear with her. When the client picked up the file for court, Mr. Butler's legal assistant noticed the affidavit of service had not been filed. The assistant signed the process server's name and then added Mr. Butler's name as the notary public. The judge cancelled the hearing due to Mr. Butler's absence. The forged affidavit was filed on May 2, 2001, and a second affidavit, actually signed by the process server, was filed the next day. Mr. Butler did not provide any formal training for the legal assistant regarding her ethical obligations.
Matter 4: In 1999, clients retained Mr. Butler to file a lawsuit in Nevada alleging that a corporation had violated a shareholders' agreement. Mr. Butler agreed to a contingent fee, but did not reduce the agreement to writing. Mr. Butler agreed to associate local counsel. Over the next year and a half, Mr. Butler did not associate with local counsel or file the lawsuit. In November 2001, the clients terminated Mr. Butler's representation and asked for a refund of $2,000 they had paid for expenses. Mr. Butler did not provide an accounting or a refund. Mr. Butler did not cooperate with the disciplinary investigation of this matter.
Matter 5: In March 2000, Mr. Butler represented a client in a child-support-modification action. At the July hearing on the client's case, the judge made an oral ruling and directed Mr. Butler to provide documentation of his client's other child-support obligations. Mr. Butler sent the client opposing counsel's proposed orders, but did not explain that the orders reflected the court's decision. In September 2001, the client disputed the proposed order. Mr. Butler did not tell opposing counsel or the court that his client disagreed with the orders. In October 2001, the court signed opposing counsel's draft order. In December 2001, the Department of Child Support notified the client that he owed back child support and that a wage garnishment was in process. Mr. Butler told the client that the court had signed the order without his knowledge and without sending him a copy. Mr. Butler did not respond to the client's request that he file a motion to vacate the order and stop the garnishment.
Mr. Butler'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 (a) and (c), requiring lawyers' fees to be reasonable and contingent-fee agreements to be in writing; 1.14(a) and (b)(2), requiring lawyers to deposit client funds into a trust account, and to keep complete records and provide accountings of all client funds; 1.15(d), requiring lawyers to protect clients' interests upon withdrawal; 5.3(a), (b), and (c), requiring partners and supervising lawyers to make reasonable efforts to ensure that nonlawyer assistants' conduct is compatible with the lawyers' professional responsibilities; and 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and RLD 2.8, requiring lawyers to cooperate with the disciplinary pr
ocess.
Marsha Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. Frank Conklin represented Mr. Butler.
Suspended
R. Keith Partlow (WSBA No. 9538, admitted 1979), of Boston, MA, was suspended for 30 months by order of the Supreme Court, effective February 25, 2003, imposing reciprocal discipline based on a suspension order from the Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This discipline is based on his conduct during 1992 through 2000 involving lack of diligence and misrepresentation in seven client matters.
Matter 1: Mr. Partlow was retained in 1992 to represent a client in a third-party workers' compensation matter. Mr. Partlow filed his notice of appearance, but took no further action. The case was dismissed in June 1993 when no one appeared for the pretrial conference. Between 1993 and 1999, Mr. Partlow told the client the matter was still pending.
Matter 2: In 1993, Mr. Partlow represented a client in a personal-injury matter. Mr. Partlow filed a lawsuit, and a portion of the case settled in 1995 for policy limits. The remainder of the case was dismissed in 1995 due to Mr. Partlow's failure to provide answers to the defendant's interrogatories. Between 1995 and 2000, Mr. Partlow told the client the action was still pending.
Matter 3: Mr. Partlow agreed to represent a client in a medical-malpractice matter. Mr. Partlow filed the complaint, but did not obtain an expert witness or prepare the required offer of proof. The court dismissed the client's case in 1998. Between 1998 and 2000, Mr. Partlow told the client the case was still pending. He also failed to refile the case.
Matter 4: Mr. Partlow agreed to represent a client in a personal-injury matter. Mr. Partlow filed the complaint, but failed to respond to the defendant's summary-judgment motion. The court dismissed the case in 1998. During 1999 and 2000, Mr. Partlow misrepresented the status of the case.
Matter 5: Mr. Partlow represented a client in a personal-injury matter. He filed the complaint, but failed to file a request for trial. The court dismissed the case in 1999. Mr. Partlow told the client the case was still pending.
Matter 6: Mr. Partlow represented a client in a third-party workers' compensation matter. Mr. Partlow filed the complaint, but failed to ensure his client's attendance at trial. The court dismissed the case when the client failed to appear. Mr. Partlow told the client the matter was still pending.
Matter 7: Mr. Partlow represented a couple in a third-party workers' compensation action. He filed the complaint, but failed to answer the defendant's interrogatories. The court dismissed the case in 1998. Between 1998 and 2000, he told the clients the case was still pending.
Mr. Partlow's conduct violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.2.(a), requiring lawyers to abide by their clients' decisions regarding the objectives of the representation; 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters; 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and 8.4(h), prohibiting any other conduct that adversely reflects on lawyers' fitness to practice law.
Felice Congalton represented the Bar Association. Mr. Partlow represented himself.
Reprimanded
Cathy L. Guthrie (WSBA No. 21774, admitted 1992), of Everett, received a reprimand on October 18, 2002, following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board in May 2002. This discipline is based on her removing disputed funds from her trust account in one matter in 2001. Ms. Guthrie agreed to resolve the fee dispute by WSBA fee arbitration or other means.
Ms. Guthrie represented a client in a dissolution action. In November 2000, the client terminated the representation and Ms. Guthrie asked the client to make payments on her bill. In December 2000, when the client did not make payments, Ms. Guthrie filed an attorney's lien. Pursuant to the dissolution decree, opposing counsel forwarded a $2,500 spousal maintenance check to Ms. Guthrie to cover the lien. The check was made out to both the client and Ms. Guthrie. The client disputed some of the billed amounts. Ms. Guthrie and the client disagreed about the amount of the check Ms. Guthrie should receive.
In May 2001, Ms. Guthrie deposited the check into her trust account without the client's endorsement. Later that month, without the client's authorization, Ms. Guthrie disbursed $2,418 to herself and the remaining $82 to the client. After the client filed a grievance, and at disciplinary counsel's suggestion, Ms. Guthrie returned the disputed funds to her trust account.
Ms. Guthrie's conduct violated RPC 1.14(a), prohibiting lawyers from withdrawing disputed funds from the trust account without establishing entitlement to the funds.
Randy Beitel represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Ms. Guthrie.
Reprimanded
Donald B. Lundahl (WSBA No. 21424, admitted 1992), of Tacoma, received a reprimand on January 17, 2003, following a hearing. This discipline is based on his conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in 2001.
In January 2001, Mr. Lundahl represented a criminal defendant. During the trial, the prosecutor interviewed a defense witness in the hallway. After the interview, the prosecutor told the judge that he noticed an odor of intoxicants around the witness. The court then ordered a short recess so the prosecutor could arrange for a deputy sheriff to interview the witness and provide an independent opinion about the odor of intoxicants. While the judge was off the bench, the court reporter offered breath mints. Mr. Lundahl took two breath mints and joked that his witness could probably use them. Mr. Lundahl gave the breath mints to the witness prior to the sheriff's interview. The sheriff's deputies were unable to determine whether the odor was from alcohol or a mouthwash. The court reporter advised the judge about Mr. Lundahl's comment regarding the breath mints. After the recess, the judge asked if either lawyer had provided breath mints to the witness. Mr. Lundahl admitted that he had provided the mints and apologized to the court. The judge found Mr. Lundahl to be in contempt of court and fined him $300. The witness testified the next day.
Mr. Lundahl's conduct violated RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Leslie Allen represented the Bar Association. Mr. Lundahl represented himself. The hearing officer was Steven W. Hale.
Reprimanded
Mark A. Patlan (WSBA No. 24003, admitted 1994), of Fort Lauderdale, FL, received a reprimand on December 6, 2002, following a stipulation. This discipline is based on his lack of diligence and communication in two client matters in 2000.
Matter 1: In July 1999, Mr. Patlan agreed to represent a client in an employment-discrimination case. Mr. Patlan filed a complaint against five corporations and two individuals. In January 2000, four defendants filed a summary-judgment motion to dismiss. Mr. Patlan filed a response, but did not include any evidence to rebut the defendant's declarations. In March, the court dismissed the client's claims against the four defendants. Mr. Patlan did no work on the case after this point. In July, after trying to contact Mr. Patlan for months, the client learned he had left the country. In August, the client terminated Mr. Patlan's representation. He responded by e-mail that he was in Mexico and forwarded her file to another lawyer. Mr. Patlan told the new lawyer and the client that he would refund her retainer, but he did not. In December 2000, Mr. Patlan received interrogatory requests from the remaining defendants. He forwarded them to the client after the response deadline had passed.
Matter 2: In 2000, Mr. Patlan agreed to represent a client in an action to dissolve a meretricious relationship. In September, the client agreed that certain debts could be paid from a joint account. In October, Mr. Patlan signed an order agreeing to use the joint account to pay the opposing party's personal credit-card debt. When the client confronted Mr. Patlan, he told her he would get back to her. The client did not hear anything further from Mr. Patlan. Mr. Patlan told the client he would contact her landlord, provide certain documents, and subpoena other documents, but he did not complete any of these tasks. In February 2001, Mr. Patlan filed his client's witness list, naming her as the only witness, and withdrew from the case. Mr. Patlan did not cooperate with the investigation of this matter.
Mr. Patlan's conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep their clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters; and 1.15, requiring lawyers to take reasonable steps to protect clients' interests upon termination of representation; and RLD 2.8, requiring lawyers to promptly cooperate with the disciplinary process.
Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Mr. Patlan represented himself.
Reprimanded
Stephen R. Thomas (WSBA No. 2388, admitted 1968), of Burien, received a reprimand on January 17, 2003, following a stipulation. The stipulation also required Mr. Thomas to submit his resignation to the WSBA within 60 days of the reprimand. Mr. Thomas resigned effective March 25, 2003. This discipline is based on his failure to diligently represent and communicate with a client in 2000. (Mr. Thomas is to be distinguished from Steven J. Thomas of Enumclaw and J. Steven Thomas of Snohomish.)
In August 2000, Mr. Thomas agreed to represent the husband in a marriage-dissolution action. Mr. Thomas filed the dissolution petition on August 23, 2000. On that same day, acting on his own behalf, the client obtained a temporary order of protection granting him exclusive use of the family residence. The wife retained counsel, who set a temporary restraining order hearing for August 20. Mr. Thomas told opposing counsel that he had to appear in a criminal case that day and asked for a continuance. Opposing counsel notified the judge of Mr. Thomas's continuance request, but the judge entered an order allowing the wife to live in the house and requiring the client to vacate the home. Opposing counsel faxed the order to Mr. Thomas the next day, but Mr. Thomas did not notify his client. On October 3, 2000, the client's wife, accompanied by police officers, presented the order to the client, who left the house. The client talked to Mr. Thomas and believed that Mr. Thomas was going to attempt to vacate the order. Mr. Thomas took no further action. The client retained substitute counsel, who moved to vacate the order. Mr. Thomas refunded $777 to the client.
Mr. Thomas's conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; and 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters.
Douglas J. Ende represented the Bar Association. Mr. Thomas represented himself.
Censured
Mark A. Carter (WSBA No. 24016, admitted 1994), of Vancouver, received a censure on January 17, 2003, following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board. This discipline is based on his conduct in 2000 involving improper advice and lack of communication with a client in a bankruptcy matter.
On November 1, 1999, a home was transferred from a trust to Mr. F. On this same day, Mr. F quitclaimed the home to his brother. Mr. F and his wife continued to live in the house and made rental payments to the brother. In January 2000, Mr. Carter agreed to represent Mr. and Mrs. F in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The petition required the clients to list all property they transferred in the last year and all property owned by another, but controlled by them. Mr. Carter marked "none" in response to these questions, believing that the transfer did not have to be disclosed. When Mr. Carter learned that the clients should have disclosed the transfer, he planned to convert the Chapter 7 filing to a Chapter 13 filing so the clients could voluntarily dismiss the petition and refile a new petition, including the transfer. Mr. Carter did not tell the clients about the conversion to a Chapter 13 filing. Even though the clients did not meet the Chapter 13 eligibility requirements, the court allowed the conversion. Mr. Carter filed a motion to dismiss the Chapter 13 filing, without the required notice to the trustee. The court dismissed the filing. The Chapter 7 filing was later reinstated at the request of a creditor.
Mr. Carter's conduct violated RPCs 1.1, requiring lawyers to provide competent representation; and 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters.
Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Mr. Carter represented himself.
Admonished
Timothy J. Adams (WSBA No. 31586, admitted 2001), of Tacoma, received an admonition following a review committee order on March 7, 2003. The admonition was based on his practicing law in Washington without a license for five months in 2001.
In June 2001, Mr. Adams was promoted to general counsel of a temporary employment corporation. On June 6, Mr. Adams applied for special admission to the Washington State Bar Association, and was admitted on November 8, 2001. During the five months Mr. Adams's admission application was pending, he practiced law in Washington without a license.
Mr. Adams's conduct violated RPC 5.5(a), prohibiting lawyers from practicing in jurisdictions where doing so violates the regulations of the legal profession in that jurisdiction.
Jonathan Burke represented the Bar Association. Fredric Tausend and Thomas E. Kelly Jr. represented Mr. Adams.
Admonished
Randall R. Hall (WSBA No. 6161, admitted 1975), of Seattle, was admonished by a review committee of the Disciplinary Board on December 6, 2002. The admonition was based on his failure to diligently represent a client.
Mr. Hall represented a family in an asylum claim and the appeal of that decision. He filed a notice of appeal and indicated in the cover letter that he would separately file a brief. Mr. Hall did not timely file a brief. The Board of Immigration Appeals considered the case without the benefit of Mr. Hall's brief.
Mr. Hall's conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients.
Marsha Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. Mr. Hall represented himself.
Back to table of contents >>
