July 2004

Disciplinary Notices

These notices of imposition of disciplinary sanctions and actions are published pursuant to Rule 11.2(c)(4) of the Supreme Court's Rules for Lawyer Discipline, and pursuant to the February 18, 1995 policy statement of the WSBA Board of Governors.

Pursuant to Rule for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct 3.6(b), file materials relating to a matter concluded with an admonition may be destroyed five years after the admonition was issued. In admonition matters, it is the WSBA's policy to remove the disciplinary notice from the Washington State Bar News website archive five years after the admonition was issued, regardless of whether the WSBA's file materials are destroyed.

For a complete copy of any disciplinary decision, call the Washington State Disciplinary Board at 206-733-5926, leaving the case name and your address, or electronically submit your requests at http://pro.wsba.org/forms/publicrequest.asp. A list of recent disciplinary notices is available on the WSBA website.

Disbarred

Karl W. Ferrier (WSBA No. 25217, admitted 1995), of Ocean Park, was disbarred effective October 29, 2003, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct between 1999 and 2001, involving theft of client funds and lack of diligence, and making false statements during the disciplinary investigation.

Matters 1 and 2: In April 2000 and March 2001, Mr. Ferrier agreed to represent clients. In both cases, he deposited the clients' advance fee deposit into his business or personal bank account and used the money for his own purposes. Mr. Ferrier did not work on the clients' cases, respond to the clients' requests that he return their files, refund their fees, or provide accountings.

Matter 3: In March 2001, Mr. Ferrier agreed to represent a client in an action to collect on a promissory note. Mr. Ferrier deposited the client's advance fee deposit into his business or general account and used it for his own purposes. Mr. Ferrier filed a complaint on the client's behalf; paid the filing fee; arranged for service of process on the defendant; and received, but did not file, the affidavit of service. The defendant did not file an answer to the lawsuit, but Mr. Ferrier told his client that he was too busy to obtain an order of default. After August 1, 2001, Mr. Ferrier did not communicate with his client. The client retained new counsel. Although new counsel requested that he do so, Mr. Ferrier did not file the affidavit of service within 90 days of filing the complaint. During the investigatory deposition of this matter, Mr. Ferrier made two false statements under oath.

Matter 4: In September 1999, Mr. Ferrier agreed to represent clients in a lawsuit against a roofing contractor. Mr. Ferrier deposited $900 of the clients' $1,000 advance fee deposit in his trust account. He filed the clients' lawsuit, but failed to timely answer discovery requests, incurring $400 in sanctions. He also failed to advise his clients that opposing counsel had offered to discuss settlement and had scheduled the clients' depositions. Neither Mr. Ferrier nor the clients appeared at the depositions. When Mr. Ferrier failed to appear at opposing counsel's subsequent motion for discovery sanctions, the court sent notice of the hearing directly to the clients. The clients appeared and indicated they could not contact Mr. Ferrier. The court imposed an additional $2,000 in sanctions. Mr. Ferrier did not cooperate with the investigation of these disciplinary matters.

Mr. Ferrier's conduct violated RPCs 8.4(b) and (c), by committing theft (embezzlement of client funds); 1.14(a), by failing to deposit client funds in an IOLTA account; 1.14(b)(3), by failing to provide accountings of client funds upon request; 1.5(a), by failing to perform legal services and retaining advance fee deposits; 1.15(d), by failing to return client files and unearned fees upon termination of the representation; 1.3, by failing to diligently represent clients; and 1.4 (a) and (b), by failing to answer client phone calls and letters, preventing clients from being informed about the status of their matters; and RLD 2.8 [now ELC 5.3(e)], by failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.

Kevin Bank represented the Bar Association. Mr. Ferrier represented himself. Waldo F. Stone was the hearing officer.

Disbarred

Trenidad Hernandez (WSBA No. 25849, admitted 1996), of Ellensburg, was disbarred effective August 20, 2003, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct between 1999 and 2001 involving theft of client funds and acts of misconduct in five personal-injury and litigation matters.

Matter 1: In October 1999, Mr. Hernandez agreed to represent a client in a personal-injury matter. The verbal fee agreement was that Mr. Hernandez's fees would be an unspecified percentage of the client's recovery. The client's case settled and Mr. Hernandez received the $5,809 settlement check. Mr. Hernandez endorsed the client's signature on the check without her permission, and deposited the check into his IOLTA account. Mr. Hernandez disbursed the client's funds to himself, but none to the client. In July and October 2001, Mr. Hernandez sent the client $2,600 from other funds.

Matter 2: In January 2001, Mr. Hernandez received a client's settlement check on a personal-injury matter. In January 2001, Mr. Hernandez sent the client $5,816, disbursed fees and costs to himself, and told the client that he had disbursed $5,763 to pay her medical bills. In fact, Mr. Hernandez had paid only one $2,000 medical bill. In February 2001, Mr. Hernandez disbursed an additional $300 to himself, without explanation. By May 2001, Mr. Hernandez's trust account had a negative balance. The trust account did not contain a $1,960 subrogation payment that the client was later required to pay from her own funds.

Matter 3: In January 2000, Mr. Hernandez agreed to represent a client in a personal-injury matter. Mr. Hernandez refused to disclose the location of his law office and failed to return the client's calls to his cellular phone. In September 2000, the client retained substitute counsel. In January 2001, Mr. Hernandez sent a settlement-demand package to the insurance company. The client did not authorize or review this settlement demand. Mr. Hernandez was not authorized to act as the client's lawyer at this time. The client asked Mr. Hernandez to send a letter of withdrawal to the insurance company, but he did not do so.

Matter 4: On March 15, 2001, Mr. Hernandez agreed to represent a client on a municipal-court traffic charge. Mr. Hernandez failed to appear for the client's pretrial conference three times. The court continued the hearing twice so that he could attend. Mr. Hernandez did not respond to the client's phone calls or refund his legal fees. The client retained new counsel.

Matter 5: In early 2001, Mr. Hernandez agreed to represent a client in a criminal matter. Mr. Hernandez failed to appear for the court-ordered motion and jury call dates. The court clerk notified Mr. Hernandez by phone of the client's April 5, 2001, hearing, but Mr. Hernandez failed to appear. When the client called Mr. Hernandez from the courthouse, he reported that his car had been stolen. The state filed a motion for sanctions against Mr. Hernandez for repeatedly failing to appear, and the court issued an order requiring his appearance. Mr. Hernandez called the court during the sanctions hearing and stated that his car had broken down on the pass. The court found Mr. Hernandez in contempt and imposed terms of $750. Mr. Hernandez did not pay the terms. Mr. Hernandez promised to return the client's $1,500 fee payment, but never did so. Mr. Hernandez did not cooperate with the disciplinary investigation into these matters.

Mr. Hernandez's conduct violated RPCs 8.4(b), 1.14(a), 1.14(b)(4), and 8.4(i), by converting client funds from his trust account (theft in the first degree); 1.5(a) or (c)(1), by failing to reduce the contingent fee agreement to writing, provide a written settlement statement, and refund unearned fees; 1.14(b)(3), by failing to provide the client an accounting of the costs and attorney's fees actually disbursed; 1.4, by failing to keep the client informed of the status of her matter; 8.4(c), by misrepresenting that he had made medical payments and telling a client he would appear at a hearing, with no intent to do so; 1.2(f), by willfully purporting to act as a person's lawyer without authorization; 1.3 and 3.2, by failing to appear at a court hearing and expedite a client's litigation; and 3.4(c), by disobeying a court order to appear for a sanction hearing; and ELC 5.3(e) and (f), by failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation, including failing to appear for a deposition after service of a subpoena.

Anthony Butler represented the Bar Association. Mr. Hernandez represented himself. William P. Bergsten was the hearing officer.

Disbarred

Todd H. Hutchinson (WSBA No. 14389, admitted 1984), of Vancouver, WA, was disbarred effective August 20, 2003, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court approving a stipulation. This discipline was based on his conduct between 2000 and 2002, involving false statements in a declaration, practicing while his license was suspended, and lack of diligence and communication in two client matters.

Matter 1: On April 15, 2000, Mr. Hutchinson agreed to represent a client involved in an auto accident. The client received a demand letter from the other driver's insurance company. Mr. Hutchinson's response to the insurance company contained factual errors. In September 2001, the other driver served the client with a lawsuit. Mr. Hutchinson met with the client and drafted a notice of appearance and answer, but did not notify opposing counsel that he was involved in the case or file the pleadings with the court. In November 2001, the court entered a $4,335.29 default judgment against the client. In January 2002, the Department of Licensing suspended the client's driver license for failure to satisfy the judgment. Mr. Hutchinson did not respond to the client's phone calls or written messages. The client's uncle, a lawyer practicing in Washington, D.C., also contacted Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. Hutchinson promised to take steps to vacate the judgment and reverse the license suspension, but he did not take these steps. Mr. Hutchinson refunded the client's attorney's fees in April 2003. Mr. Hutchinson failed to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel's investigation of this matter.

Matter 2: In February 2002, Mr. Hutchinson agreed to assist a client in obtaining a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) following a marriage-dissolution action. Mr. Hutchinson told the client that this matter would take about two weeks and that she would have a court date on March 29, 2002. Mr. Hutchinson did not schedule a court date. In April 2002, Mr. Hutchinson noted a hearing and told opposing counsel that he would send a proposed QDRO the following week. Mr. Hutchinson did not send opposing counsel a proposed QDRO and agreed to strike the hearing. Mr. Hutchinson started, but did not finish, the QDRO.

In October 2002, the client fired Mr. Hutchinson and asked for a refund. Mr. Hutchinson sent the client a refund in April 2003. Mr. Hutchinson did not cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel's investigation of this matter.

Matter 3: On November 8, 2002, the Bar Association filed a petition with the Washington State Supreme Court asking for Mr. Hutchinson's immediate interim suspension, based on his failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigations. Mr. Hutchinson failed to respond to the show-cause order by the date required, so, on January 10, 2003, the Court struck the hearing and stated that the matter would be considered without oral argument. On January 16, 2003, Mr. Hutchinson filed pleadings with the Court stating falsely that he had refunded the clients' flat-fee retainers. On January 17, 2003, the Court issued an order suspending Mr. Hutchinson's license.

Matter 4: Despite the Court's order suspending his license, Mr. Hutchinson appeared in court and signed pleadings on January 22, 2003.

Mr. Hutchinson's conduct violated RPCs 1.4(a), by failing to adequately inform clients about the status of their cases; 1.4(b), by failing to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary for clients to make informed decisions; 1.3, by failing to serve his notice of appearance and answer, failing to file the motion to vacate judgment, and failing to obtain a QDRO; 1.5 and 1.15(d), by failing to return unearned and unreasonable fees; 3.3(a) and 8.4(c), by falsely stating in a declaration that he had refunded his clients' retainers; and 5.5(e), by signing pleadings after his license to practice had been suspended; and RLD 2.8(a) [now ELC 5.3(e)], by failing to cooperate with the disciplinary process.

Marsha Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. Mr. Hutchinson represented himself. Joseph Mano was the hearing officer.

Disbarred

Kenneth P. Schmidt (WSBA No. 14677, admitted 1984), of Yakima, was disbarred effective September 11, 2003, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct between 1999 and 2001 involving practicing with a suspended license, lack of diligence in four client matters, theft of client funds, and filing a false answer in the disciplinary proceeding.

Matter 1: The Washington State Supreme Court suspended Mr. Schmidt's license to practice law, effective July 24, 2001, for failure to pay WSBA license fees. During a July 26, 2001, deposition, Mr. Schmidt stated falsely under oath that he had "written to the Bar and sent them a check." At the time of his suspension, Mr. Schmidt had contracts to represent clients for the Yakima County Department of Assigned Counsel (DAC). Mr. Schmidt did not notify DAC, his clients, or opposing counsel of his suspension. Mr. Schmidt knowingly continued to represent several clients during his suspension. In October 2001, the DAC director learned of the suspension and asked Mr. Schmidt to prepare a list of his cases and return his files. Mr. Schmidt did not prepare the list or promptly return the files.

Matter 2: In 1987, Mr. Schmidt represented a client in a Labor and Industries claim. Mr. Schmidt set up a living trust for the client's L&I pension and Social Security Supplemental Disability Insurance payments. Mr. Schmidt managed the client's trust. In January 2000, Mr. Schmidt deposited one of the client's checks into his IOLTA account and did not transfer any of the funds to the client.

Matter 3: In November 1999, Mr. Schmidt became the trustee for a minor child, when the mother died. Mr. Schmidt opened an account for the child using the mother's life-insurance proceeds. In April 2000, Mr. Schmidt transferred $15,000 from the child's account into an account held for another client. He then took $100 of this money in cash, transferred $5,900 to his personal bank account, and transferred $5,000 into his law-office account. Mr. Schmidt depleted the remaining $4,000 in small increments for other clients. During the investigation of this matter, Mr. Schmidt falsely told disciplinary counsel that the $15,000 were his "personal funds from an inheritance in the amount of $15,000 which were mistakenly deposited into Mr. Bunyan's account." Disciplinary counsel subpoenaed Mr. Schmidt to appear at a deposition and produce proof of his inheritance claim. Mr. Schmidt failed to appear for the deposition.

Matter 4: Mr. Schmidt represented a client who was injured in a May 1997 automobile accident. Mr. Schmidt notified the insurance company that he represented the client, but took no further action. The insurance company closed its file when the statute of limitations expired on the client's claim.

Mr. Schmidt's conduct violated RPCs 5.5(a) and 8.4(d), by continuing to practice law after suspended by order of the Washington State Supreme Court; 1.15 (a)(1), by failing to terminate representation if continuing would violate the RPCs; 8.4(l), by failing to discontinue practice upon suspension; 8.4(b), (c) and (i), by making a knowingly false statement under oath during a deposition and wrongfully obtaining control over client funds (theft); 8.4(l), by failing to notify clients, employer, and opposing counsel of his inability to continue representation; and failing to file written response to grievances and appear at deposition when subpoenaed; 1.15(d), by failing to take steps to protect clients' interests upon termination; 8.4(c), by providing a false Answer to First Amended Formal Complaint; and 1.3, by failing to take action on a client's claim prior to expiration of the statute of limitations.

Joanne S. Abelson represented the Bar Association. Kenneth P. Schmidt represented himself. Veronica Alicea-Galvan was the hearing officer.

Suspended

Randy J. Fair (WSBA No. 22918, admitted 1993), of Moses Lake, was suspended for one year, effective October 29, 2003, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court, approving a stipulation. This discipline was based on conflicts of interest and trust-account issues in a marital dissolution matter in 2001 and a wrongful garnishment in 2002.

Matter 1: In 2001, Lawyer A worked in the same law office as Mr. Fair. Lawyer A represented clients in a real estate contract forfeiture action. On January 20, 2001, Lawyer A served Ms. R with a notice of forfeiture on two lots. Ms. R lived in a mobile home on these lots. Ms. R met with Lawyer A regarding the forfeiture. During this meeting, Ms. R expressed dissatisfaction with her dissolution lawyer. Lawyer A referred Ms. R to Mr. Fair. Ms. R told Mr. Fair that she wanted title to the two real estate parcels in the property division and explained that she was concerned about the forfeiture. Mr. Fair reviewed documents, including the forfeiture notice signed by Lawyer A. Mr. Fair did not explain to Ms. R that his office represented the sellers of the two lots in the forfeiture action. Mr. Fair did not obtain a written waiver of any actual or potential conflict of interest between these two representations.

Mr. Fair referred Ms. R to his brother, a CPA, to prepare a valuation of her husband's business for use in the dissolution matter. Mr. Fair did not explain or obtain a written waiver of any potential or actual conflicts of interest in referring the client to his brother.

In July 2001, Mr. Fair prepared, and the court signed, the final dissolution pleadings. The pleadings awarded Ms. R the two real estate parcels. Mr. Fair did not conduct a title search prior to finalizing the pleadings. The contract payments and property taxes were delinquent on both parcels, and the legal descriptions of these lots contained errors. Additionally, Mr. Fair used four-year-old financial and employment information to determine his client's child support.

In September 2001, Mr. Fair received $13,600 from the opposing client, for attorney's fees, and current and back-due child support. In October 2001, Mr. Fair wrote the client about this payment, but did not specify the amount received or the amounts he disbursed to his firm and to his brother.

In October 2001, Lawyer A filed notices of intent to forfeit the two real estate parcels. Mr. Fair reviewed these documents. Mr. Fair obtained Mr. R's signature on deeds quitclaiming his interest to Ms. R. The auditor rejected the quitclaim deeds because of back-due taxes and errors in the excise-tax affidavits. In January 2002, Mr. Fair, after being promoted to partner, withdrew from representing Ms. R, because his partner was "pursuing a foreclosure sale upon realty owned by you." The client was evicted from her mobile home.

Matter 2: Mr. Fair represented Ms. B in a marriage-dissolution action. The May 2002 decree required her former husband (H) to pay attorney's fees by April 10, 2003. The court's order provided that attorney's fees unpaid by May 2, 2003 would become a judgment and accrue interest. On appeal, Ms. B was awarded an additional $4,000, to be paid by November 22, 2002.

On September 11, 2002, Mr. Fair garnished H's bank account. Mr. Fair's affidavit did not explain that H could make these payments until November 2002 and May 2003. H retained counsel, who scheduled a hearing on the garnishment for November 15. H's counsel agreed to continue the hearing date at Mr. Fair's request. Counsel sent a letter to the court continuing the hearing, but the letter did not arrive until after the hearing on September 15. Mr. Fair attended the hearing and did not tell the court of his agreement to continue the hearing. Mr. Fair argued the motions on the merits, and the court denied H's motion and awarded Mr. Fair additional attorney's fees. The matter was settled after opposing counsel filed a motion for reconsideration.

Mr. Fair's conduct violated RPCs 1.7(a) and 1.10, by two lawyers associated in the same firm representing clients whose interests are directly adverse, unless the clients consent in writing after full disclosure; 1.7(b), by representing a client if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to a third person; 1.14, by failing to promptly deliver client funds upon request; 1.4(a), by failing to keep the client reasonably informed about the fees and costs disbursed from client funds; 1.4(b), by failing to explain to the extent necessary that Mr. Fair was holding child-support payments and that the client could challenge his removal of back-due child support; 1.3, by failing to diligently represent Ms. R; 3.1 and 3.3(f), by wrongfully garnishing Mr. B's bank account and failing to inform the court that he agreed to continue the hearing date.

Leslie Ching Allen represented the Bar Association. Leland Ripley represented Mr. Fair.

Suspended

Haim Habib (WSBA No. 16060, admitted 1986), of Hagatna, Guam, was suspended for 60 days, effective August 18, 2003, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline based on an order from the state of California. This discipline was based on his failure to protect a client's rights upon withdrawal in a litigation matter.

In Guam, Mr. Habib represented a client for approximately eight years. Five days prior to trial, Mr. Habib told the client that the judge in the case was hostile toward Mr. Habib and suggested that the client meet with lawyer G in an attempt to find new counsel. Mr. Habib sent the client's file to lawyer G and arranged two meetings. The client was not able to attend either meeting. Mr. Habib did not seek the court's permission to withdraw and did not appear for the client's trial. Lawyer G appeared at the trial, told the court he would not take the client's case, and returned her file. The judge continued the case for one week. The client appeared pro se, and the court entered a $76,570 judgment against her.

Mr. Habib's conduct was found to have violated Guam Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, requiring lawyers to provide competent representation; and 1.16, requiring lawyers to take reasonable steps to protect a client's interests upon withdrawal.

Felice Congalton represented the Association. Mr. Habib represented himself.

Suspended

Jerry L. Kagele (WSBA No. 4851, admitted 1972), of Spokane, was suspended for one year and reprimanded, effective July 28, 2003, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. This discipline was based on violations in six client litigation matters. For additional information, please see In re Discipline of Kagele, 149 Wn.2d 793, 72 P.2d 1067 (2003).

Matter 1: In May 1995, Mr. Kagele represented clients in a dispute with a residential contractor. In August 1995, Mr. Kagele filed the lawsuit, but did not tell the clients. Also, he named the bonding company, but did not perfect service, and failed to correct service when he learned of the problem. The clients told Mr. Kagele they wanted a jury trial, but he did not file a jury demand. Between November 1995 and early August 1996, Mr. Kagele told the clients he had no new information about their case. He failed to inform the clients of their trial date. The clients retained new counsel. New counsel found no discovery in the client file. Mr. Kagele explained that the lack of discovery was part of his trial strategy. This strategy was not communicated to the clients.

Matter 2: In April 1997, Mr. Kagele represented clients in a dispute with a contractor. Although he promised to serve the complaint by April 14, the clients did not receive a draft complaint until late May 1997. The draft complaint named the wrong defendant. The clients terminated the representation.

Matter 3: In June 1996, Mr. Kagele represented a client in a dispute regarding an interest in a house she shared with another person. Between June and August 1996, Mr. Kagele failed to return many of the client's phone calls. In August, when Mr. Kagele had not filed a complaint, the client sent a letter terminating the representation. When Mr. Kagele received the termination letter, he left a message for the client's father and filed the complaint. On September 10, Mr. Kagele received a second letter from the client terminating his services. On that day, he filed a lis pendens.

Matter 4: In March 1998, Mr. Kagele represented clients in a dispute with their neighbors over blocking of access to an alley. Mr. Kagele drove by the disputed area, but never looked at the alley. The clients specifically asked to review the complaint before Mr. Kagele filed it. Mr. Kagele filed the complaint without allowing the client review. The complaint contained an erroneous legal description, failed to reference a prescriptive easement, failed to address the alley issue, and asked to quiet title to the centerline of the one-car-width driveway. On March 30, 1998, the clients terminated the representation. Mr. Kagele told the clients that he would commence litigation to collect the remainder of his fee, even though they had terminated the representation. In April, Mr. Kagele received a trespass warning from the neighbor's lawyer, but did not inform his former clients.

Matter 5: In April 1995, Mr. Kagele represented a client in an immigration matter. The client misrepresented her marital status to obtain a visitor's visa. On April 21, the client was married. Mr. Kagele did not effectively communicate to the client how to resolve the immigration issue.

Matter 6: In January 1996, Mr. Kagele assisted clients with loan transactions. The clients were not able to contact Mr. Kagele between February and April 1996. On April 15, one client wrote a letter terminating Mr. Kagele's representation.

Mr. Kagele's conduct violated RPCs 1.1, by filing a complaint with errors, and failing to review the complaint with clients prior to filing in matter 4; 1.2 by failing to abide by the clients' instructions to seek a jury trial in matter 1; 1.3, by failing to diligently pursue matters 1, 2, and 5; 1.4, by failing to keep clients informed as to the status of their cases in matters1, 2, 3, and 6; and 3.2, by failing to promptly file pleadings and move cases toward resolution in matters 1, 2, and 3.

Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association at hearing, and Kenneth W. Masters on appeal. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Kagele. James M. Danielson was the hearing officer.

Suspended

Sidney S. Rodabough (WSBA No. 4819, admitted 1972), of Kent, was suspended for three years, effective September 11, 2003, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court approving a stipulation. This discipline was based on his lack of diligence and communication in a medical-malpractice matter between 1998 and 2001.

In February 1998, Mr. Rodabough filed a personal-injury lawsuit for a client who had suffered complications from medical treatment. In March and April, two defendants served discovery requests, but Mr. Rodabough did not respond. He also failed to attend the August 1998 status conference. In September 1998, the court granted a motion to compel discovery and imposed sanctions against Mr. Rodabough, advising that any further noncompliance with discovery would result in dismissal of the client's complaint. Mr. Rodabough failed to respond to the defendants' motion for summary judgment or appear at the second status conference. On September 24, 1998, the court dismissed the client's case, and the statute of limitations barred re-opening of the client's claim. Until September 2001, Mr. Rodabough continued meeting with the client and leading her to believe that her case was pending. On October 8, 1998, Mr. Rodabough filed a bankruptcy petition. In October 2001, the client learned that her case had been dismissed. She retained new counsel and filed an amended claim in Mr. Rodabough's bankruptcy.

Mr. Rodabough's conduct violated RPCs 1.3, by failing to respond to a summary judgment motion, meet case deadlines, and attend hearings; and 1.4, by failing to tell the client that her case had been dismissed.

Linda B. Eide represented the Bar Association. Mr. Rodabough represented himself. David K. Hiscock was the hearing officer.

Reprimanded

Philip G. Henderson (WSBA No. 19135, admitted 1989), of Bend, OR, was ordered to receive a reprimand, effective October 2, 2003, pursuant to an order from the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline based on an order from the state of Oregon. This discipline was based on conflicts on interest and contacting represented parties in a corporate-dissolution matter.

Mr. Henderson represented an interior-design business. Mr. Henderson's wife (S) and another person (G) each owned half the stock in the business. In May 1993, a dispute arose between S and G, and they began to discuss dissolving the business. Mr. Henderson advised the business on this dispute on one occasion, but did not disclose to his client that his judgment might be affected by his marital relationship to one of the shareholders. By June 1993, G retained counsel and Mr. Henderson continued to represent the corporation and S individually. The corporation's interest in continuing to exist may have conflicted with S's interest in dissolving the corporation. Mr. Henderson did not disclose this conflict to his clients. In July 1993, Mr. Henderson knew that G was represented by counsel, but he communicated directly with her on corporate matters.

Mr. Henderson's conduct violated DRs 5-101(A), by giving advice about dissolving to a two-shareholder corporation while married to one of the shareholders, without disclosure of the conflict and consent to continue the representation; 10-101(B), by continuing to represent the corporation and S individually when their interests were likely conflicting, without disclosing the conflict or obtaining consent to continue the representation; and 7-104(A)(1), by contacting G directly when he knew that she was represented by counsel

Felice Congalton represented the Bar Association. Mr. Henderson represented himself.

Reprimanded

Jeffrey G. Poole (WSBA No. 15578, admitted 1986), of Seattle, received a reprimand effective September 8, 2003, following a hearing. This discipline is based on his failure to properly manage his trust account in 2001 and 2002.

Matter 1: In August 2000, Mr. Poole represented a client in a contract dispute. In November 2000, Mr. Poole retained an expert, asking him to send his bill to Mr. Poole's office. In February 2001, Mr. Poole billed the client for attorney's fees and the $500 expert-witness fee. Mr. Poole deposited the client's March 2001 payment, including the expert-witness fee, into his general account. In July, Mr. Poole wrote to the client, asking her to pay the expert directly. The client responded that she had already sent the money to Mr. Poole and directed him to pay the expert's bill. Mr. Poole paid the expert bill with interest on December 19, 2001, after the expert filed a grievance with the Bar Association.

Matter 2: In 2002, the Bar Association audited Mr. Poole's trust account. The audit found the following trust-account management issues: check registers without a running balance and failure to reconcile the check register to the client ledgers; incomplete and inaccurate client ledgers; earned fees retained in the trust account; disbursement of funds prior to deposits clearing the banking system; disbursement of funds prior to date of actual client deposit; and a shortage. The hearing officer found that Mr. Poole's conduct was negligent, not intentional. No clients actually lost funds, but this conduct caused potential injury.

Mr. Poole's conduct violated RPCs 1.14(a), by failing to place client money for expert fees in the trust account; disbursing funds of one client on behalf of another; commingling the lawyer's own funds with client funds in the trust account; and failing to wait for deposited items to clear the banking system before disbursing from the trust account; 1.14(b)(4), by failing to promptly follow the client's instructions to pay the expert fee; and holding funds of inactive client in the trust account; and 1.14(b)(3), by failing to maintain complete trust-account records.

Christine Gray and Randy Beitel represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Poole. J. Donald Curran was the hearing officer.

Admonished

Pursuant to Rule for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct 3.6(b), file materials relating to a matter concluded with an admonition may be destroyed five years after the admonition was issued. In admonition matters, it is the WSBA's policy to remove the disciplinary notice from the Washington State Bar News website archive five years after the admonition was issued, regardless of whether the WSBA's file materials are destroyed.

Back to table of contents >>