March 2004

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.

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 name and address.

Disbarred
Grosvenor Anschell (WSBA No. 9756, admitted 1954), of Bellevue, was disbarred effective May 29, 2003, by order of the Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 1993 through 1997 involving immigration and escrow matters. For additional information, please see In re Anschell, 149 Wn.2d 484, 69 P.3d 844 (2003).

Matter 1: In 1993, Mr. Anschell agreed to represent Mr. D in his request for a grant of immunity from the I.N.S. Mr. D had married and then divorced, but continued to live with Ms. B, a citizen of the Philippines. Mr. D then obtained an alien fiancée visa for Ms. B's niece, and they were subsequently married. Mr. D then divorced the niece and wanted a grant of immunity to report the niece to the I.N.S. Mr. Anschell wrote a letter to the I.N.S. requesting the grant of immunity.

In 1995, the I.N.S. issued notice of intent to rescind the niece's permanent-residence status based on a fraudulent marriage. The niece then retained Mr. Anschell to represent her in the rescission case. Mr. Anschell did not discuss this conflict of interest with either of his clients. Mr. Anschell did not respond to the I.N.S. rescission notice, and the I.N.S. rescinded the niece's status and terminated her right to be employed in the U.S. A year after the decision, Mr. Anschell prepared documents to adjust the niece's status. In these documents, Mr. Anschell answered no to questions asking whether the niece had ever procured a visa by fraud or had ever been the subject of immigration proceedings. When Mr. D learned that Mr. Anschell represented the niece, he filed a grievance with the WSBA. Mr. Anschell told the WSBA he would withdraw, but did not do so. Mr. Anschell requested, and the court ordered, that the niece be voluntarily deported. He then waived the niece's right to appeal.

Matter 2: In 1996, Mr. Anschell agreed to act as the closing escrow agent for two residential property transactions. The first sale closed in February 1996, but the second was delayed when the seller died. In June 1996, the parties signed the documents for the second sale and Mr. Anschell completed the HUD-1 Settlement Statement (statement). The statement did not include a $20 disbursement Mr. Anschell had made the day prior to sending the statement to the lender. On June 20, 1996, Mr. Anschell received the loan proceeds and a check from the purchasers. Mr. Anschell did not deposit the purchasers' check into his trust account until July 3, 1996. Although Mr. Anschell was aware of the disbursement amounts by June 20, he made the payments between June 20 and August 19. He paid off the first mortgage on July 29, increasing the pay-off amount. Mr. Anschell prepared the final HUD-1 form more than a year after the sale closed, and the form was not accurate. As of August 1996, Mr. Anschell had not paid the title and mortgage-insurance premiums. In December 1997, Mr. Anschell deposited $300 of his own funds into the trust account to make the premium payments.

Matter 3: On March 24, 1997, while in court for another matter, Mr. B asked Mr. Anschell to represent him. Mr. Anschell agreed, filed a notice of appearance, and obtained an order allowing a brief to be filed on April 28. The forms Mr. Anschell filed contained the client's address. Mr. Anschell did not contact his client or file the brief. In June 1997, the court ordered the client deported. Mr. Anschell received a copy of this decision, but did not send it to his client. The I.N.S. went to the address on the forms and took the client into custody. The client retained new counsel and unsuccessfully attempted to re-open the deportation proceedings. Mr. Anschell did not promptly or fully cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel's investigation.

Mr. Anschell's conduct violated RPCs 1.9, prohibiting lawyers from representing a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the lawyer's former client; 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent clients; 4.1(a), prohibiting lawyers from making false statements of fact or law to third parties; 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep their clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters; and 1.14, requiring lawyers to protect client funds; and RLD 2.8(a), requiring lawyers to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.

Fred Tausend, Jason Holtman, and Jean McElroy represented the Bar Association. Mr. Anschell represented himself. Thomas J. Greenan was the hearing officer.

Suspended
Thomas J. Brothers (WSBA No. 9653, admitted 1980), of Lynnwood, was suspended for one year and reprimanded, effective June 12, 2003, by order of the Supreme Court following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in an estate matter in 1996.

In 1994, Mr. Brothers prepared a living trust for Ms. H. In 1996, Mr. Brothers created an irrevocable living trust for the client, naming one of her two sons as the trustee and leaving all of the property to him. In 1996, Ms. H decided to sell her home. Mr. Brothers discovered that in 1990, Ms. H had conveyed her home to another living trust created earlier by another lawyer. Ms. H wanted the home transferred from the earlier trust to the 1996 trust. On July 2, 1996, Mr. Brothers and the trustee entered into a fee agreement for the property transfer. The written fee agreement stated that the fee would be one-third of the value of the house for "all necessary legal services to clear title." Mr. Brothers's paralegal prepared a quitclaim deed and a request for distribution of $36,663. The client signed these documents. On July 29, 1996, Mr. Brothers deposited the $36,663 into his trust account and then distributed the fee to himself and his paralegal. At this same time, Mr. Brothers charged other clients $50 to prepare quitclaim deeds. Just after the disciplinary hearing, Mr. Brothers sent the trustee a full refund with interest.

Mr. Brothers's conduct violated RPCs 1.5, requiring lawyers' fees to be reasonable.

Henry Jameson and Randy Beitel represented the Bar Association. Leland G. Ripley represented Mr. Brothers. Thomas J. Greenan was the hearing officer.

Suspended
John L. McKean (WSBA No.13294, admitted 1983), of Moses Lake, was suspended for six months by order of the Supreme Court following a hearing, effective March 26, 2003. Mr. McKean returned to active status on September 29, 2003. For additional information, please see In re McKean, 148 Wn.2d 849, 64 P.3d 1226 (2003). This discipline is based on his business transaction with his client 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, and believed that the court would involuntarily dismiss their 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. In July 1997, Mr. McKean agreed to take an ownership interest in the clients' business. Mr. McKean took a 51 percent interest in the business, and 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 RPC 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 or a third party, or by 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. J. Donald Curran was the hearing officer.

Reprimanded
I. Luke Kim (WSBA No. 28330, admitted 1998), of California, received a reprimand on July 25, 2003, following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2002 during an arbitration hearing.

In March 2002, Mr. Kim represented clients in an arbitration hearing. One of the issues in the hearing was whether Mr. Kim had been present during a meeting with an insurance adjuster. Mr. Kim testified at the hearing about this meeting.

Mr. Kim subpoenaed Mr. G to testify at the arbitration. When Mr. G arrived, Mr. Kim had a private conversation with him. Following this private conversation, Mr. Kim told the arbitrator and opposing counsel that Mr. G had received an emergency call and had to leave without testifying. This statement was not true. The opposing party called Mr. G and learned that there was no emergency call. Mr. G returned to the hearing and testified that Mr. Kim had told him to leave. Mr. Kim admitted his conduct and made an apology.

Mr. Kim's conduct violated RPCs 3.3(a), prohibiting knowingly making a false statement of fact to the tribunal; 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and 3.7, prohibiting lawyers from testifying in proceedings in which they represent a party.

Christine Gray represented the Bar Association. Mr. Kim represented himself. 
 
Back to table of contents >>