May 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.
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
Glenn E. Reed (WSBA No. 5328, admitted 1973), of Tucson, AZ, was disbarred effective July 1, 2003, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court approving a stipulation. Mr. Reed stipulated to a substantial likelihood that the Association would prove these facts at a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2001 and 2002, involving theft of client funds and writing checks on closed accounts.
Matter 1: In 2001, Mr. Reed received a client's settlement check, and agreed to deposit the check in his trust account and pay the client's medical bills. Mr. Reed deposited the check into his trust account, but used the money for his own benefit. Mr. Reed gave the client false responses to his questions about why Mr. Reed had not yet paid the client's medical bills. In February 2002, the bank closed Mr. Reed's IOLTA account apparently due to insufficient funds to cover items presented. As of the date of the stipulation, Mr. Reed had not paid the medical bills or delivered the settlement funds to the client.
Matter 2: In May 2002, the Association received notification that Mr. Reed's trust account was overdrawn. The bank stated that the account had been opened in February 2002, with a $10 deposit and then had over $5,000 in returned checks in a 10-day period in May 2002. The bank did not receive any deposits to cover the checks. Mr. Reed wrote a $4,500 check against this account and then stopped payment on the check that same day. He also wrote several checks to local businesses knowing that he did not have funds in the account to meet the checks when presented. This account was not set up as an IOLTA account.
Matter 3: Between June 20 and June 24, 2002, Mr. Reed wrote nine checks to a grocery store, totaling $564.75, and seven checks to a market, totaling $490.56. Mr. Reed wrote all of these checks on an account that he knew was closed. Some of the checks were written for more than the amount of the purchase, so Mr. Reed could obtain cash. Mr. Reed stipulated that his actions were part of a common scheme or plan with the intent to defraud the grocery and the market. As of the date of the stipulation, Mr. Reed had not paid all of the money owing.
Mr. Reed's conduct violated RPCs 8.4(b), prohibiting committing a criminal act [theft] that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; and 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Jean McElroy represented the Bar Association. John W. Murphy represented Mr. Reed.
Disbarred
John E. Wagenblast (WSBA No. 5850, admitted 1974), formerly of Yakima, was disbarred effective October 29, 2003, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court approving a stipulation. Mr. Wagenblast stipulated that the Association would be able to prove these facts at a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2001 and 2002 involving misappropriation of client funds in an estate matter.
In July 1994, Mr. Wagenblast agreed to represent the personal representative (PR) of an estate. Following Mr. Wagenblast's advice, the PR used the law-office address for the estate bank accounts. The bank statements were sent to Mr. Wagenblast's office. Mr. Wagenblast's office assistant forged the PR's signature on several checks, and most of them were deposited into Mr. Wagenblast's business account. Mr. Wagenblast stipulated that the Association would be able to prove that he knew of his assistant's forgery and misappropriation. Mr. Wagenblast did not maintain complete records of the estate bank accounts. In June 2001, Mr. Wagenblast's assistant pleaded guilty to forgery and was ordered to pay $58,652.55 in restitution. As of the date of the stipulation, Mr. Wagenblast had not reimbursed the estate for any of the misappropriated funds.
Mr. Wagenblast's conduct violated RPCs 8.4(a), prohibiting violating or attempting to violate the RPCs through the acts of another; 8.4(b), prohibiting committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; and 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Marsha Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. John F. Strohmaier represented Mr. Wagenblast.
Disbarred
Linda J. Whitt (WSBA No. 21249, admitted 1991), of Olympia, was disbarred effective July10, 2003, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. This discipline was based on her conduct in 1998 and 1999 involving making false or misleading statements to a client, and providing false statements and documentation to the Association. For additional information, please see In re Discipline of Whitt, 149 Wn.2d 707, 72 P.3d 173 (2003).
In February 1997, Ms. Whitt filed a police-misconduct action for her client. After the client identified a different defendant at deposition, opposing counsel filed a malicious-prosecution counterclaim. Ms. Whitt negotiated the dismissal of her client's action in exchange for dismissal of the counterclaim. The court dismissed the client's action with prejudice in November 1998. Ms. Whitt did not inform her client of the counterclaim or the dismissal. In April 1999, the client contacted Ms. Whitt about discovery issues on his case. Ms. Whitt told the client that she was retiring and could no longer represent him. Ms. Whitt sent the file to the client. The client then learned that his case had been dismissed with prejudice and filed a grievance. In January 2000, Ms. Whitt submitted false information and fabricated documents with her response to the Association.
Ms. Whitt's conduct violated RPCs 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; 1.2, requiring lawyers to abide by the client's decisions concerning the objectives of the representation; 1.3 and 3.2, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients and expedite litigation; and 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep their clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters; and RLD 2.8(b) (now ELC 5.3(e)), requiring lawyers to promptly cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
Linda Eide and Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer and Thomas D. Overcast represented Ms. Whitt. Michael L. Lewis was the hearing officer.
Disbarred
Stephen L. Wozny (WSBA No. 9138, admitted 1979), of Longview, was disbarred effective September 11, 2003, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2001 and 2002 demonstrating unfitness to practice law.
Mr. Wozny represented clients in an appeal. During 2001 and 2002, Mr. Wozny personally delivered case pleadings to the presiding judge's residence on four occasions. On one occasion, he arranged for substituted service of case pleadings on the judge's wife at their residence. Mr. Wozny also called the judge at his residence arguing for a stay of the appeal proceedings. In March 2002, Mr. Wozny filed a "pre-indictment" notice and pleadings requesting removal of several judges for "bias, prejudice and criminal acts against Stephen L. Wozny." In later pleadings, Mr. Wozny alleged that some of the judges were participating in racketeering schemes and other crimes. In August 2002, Mr. Wozny filed a civil complaint for libel against the judge assigned to the clients' appeal, seeking $1,032,750,000 in damages. In January 2003, the complaint was dismissed and CR 11 sanctions were imposed against Mr. Wozny for filing a frivolous complaint.
Mr. Wozny's conduct violated RPCs 3.5(a), prohibiting seeking to influence a judge by means prohibited by law; 3.5(b), prohibiting ex parte communication with judges, except as permitted by law; 3.5(c), prohibiting conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal; 3.1, prohibiting bringing unmeritorious proceedings; 8.2(a), prohibiting making false statements about the qualifications, integrity, or record of a judge; 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; 8.4(l), requiring lawyers to comply with the ELCs; and 8.4(n), prohibiting conduct demonstrating unfitness to practice law.
Thuy N. Leeper and David Goodnight represented the Bar Association. Mr. Wozny represented himself. David A. Thorner was the hearing officer.
Reprimanded
George P. Trejo Jr. (WSBA No. 19758, admitted 1990), of Yakima, received a reprimand, and was ordered to pay approximately $6,500 restitution, on June 6, 2003, following a hearing. This discipline is based on his failing to diligently represent four clients, and charging excessive fees in 1997 and 1998.
Matter 1: In 1997, Mr. Trejo agreed to represent a client serving jail time to satisfy a fine imposed for committing two misdemeanors. The family paid Mr. Trejo $2,000 to begin the representation. Mr. Trejo instructed his staff to contact the municipal court for the cost of the record and met with the family to request additional fees. He took little or no other action on the case. He did not file a notice of appearance or a notice of appeal. Mr. Trejo refused the family's request to refund the fees paid. Mr. Trejo's conduct in this matter violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; and 1.5(a), requiring lawyers to charge reasonable fees.
Matter 2: In 1997, Mr. Trejo agreed to represent a client in a sentencing hearing and an appeal of the client's felony convictions in Oregon. Mr. Trejo was not admitted to practice law in Oregon. The family paid Mr. Trejo $6,000. Mr. Trejo reviewed one of two sets of indictments, judgments, and sentencing orders, and did not contact trial counsel or review the transcript. Mr. Trejo determined an issue on appeal may exist and asked for additional funds to attend the sentencing or begin an appeal. Other counsel represented the client at the sentencing and on appeal. The family requested a refund of the fees they had paid. Mr. Trejo initially refused, claiming that he had been paid only $3,000. Mr. Trejo refunded $3,000 after acknowledging in a disciplinary deposition that he had been paid $6,000. Mr. Trejo's conduct in this matter violated RPCs 1.5(a) and (b), requiring lawyers to charge reasonable fees and to explain the basis for the fees; 1.1 and 1.3, requiring lawyers to competently represent their clients; 1.14(a) and (b), requiring lawyers to deposit client funds into an IOLTA trust account and deliver client funds promptly when requested; and 1.15(d), requiring lawyers to take reasonable steps to protect a client's interests upon withdrawal.
Matter 3: In 1998, Mr. Trejo agreed to represent a client in a criminal appeal in Oregon. Mr. Trejo was not admitted to practice law in Oregon. The client's mother paid Mr. Trejo $4,000. Mr. Trejo performed a limited review of the case, prepared one short memo, and asked for an additional $6,000 to begin the appeal. Mr. Trejo refused to refund the fee, claiming it was non-refundable. Mr. Trejo's conduct in this matter violated RPCs 1.1, 1.3, and 1.5(a) and (b).
Matter 4: In 1998, Mr. Trejo agreed to represent a client charged with a felony in Texas. Mr. Trejo was not admitted to practice law in Texas. Mr. Trejo retained local Texas counsel, but asked that he sponsor Mr. Trejo only when Mr. Trejo appeared in court. Mr. Trejo filed a notice of appearance, but took no further action until April 1999. By that time, the court had issued a warrant for the client's arrest and ordered his bond forfeited. The family asked for a refund of the $4,000 they had paid. Mr. Trejo refused, claiming the fees were nonrefundable. Mr. Trejo's conduct in this matter violated RPCs 1.1, 1.3, and 1.5(a) and (b).
Matter 5: Mr. Trejo failed to timely cooperate with the Bar Association investigation of three of these matters. Mr. Trejo's conduct in this matter violated RLD 2.8 (now ELC 5.3(e)).
Gregory F. Wesner and Claire Foley represented the Bar Association at hearing, and Douglas Ende represented the Bar Association on appeal. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Trejo at hearing, and Mr. Trejo represented himself on appeal. Ronald A. Roberts was the hearing officer.
Reprimanded
E. Armstrong Williams (WSBA No. 30361, admitted 2000), of Spokane, received a reprimand on July 7, 2003, following a hearing. This discipline is based on his conduct in 2001, involving failure to avoid conflicts of interest in a litigation matter.
In 2001, Mr. Williams agreed to represent a client in a paternity action. While the case was pending, Mr. Williams retained opposing counsel to represent him against allegations being investigated by the Association. Opposing counsel represented Mr. Williams from October 2001 through October 2002. Mr. Williams did not advise his client of the potential conflict between her interests and his own interests.
Mr. Williams's conduct violated RPC 1.7(b), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's own interest, unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents in writing after full disclosure.
Leslie C. Allen represented the Bar Association. Mr. Williams represented himself. James P. Spurgetis was the hearing officer.
Admonished
Lawrence L. Tracy (WSBA No. 3035, admitted 1972), of Moses Lake, was ordered to receive an admonition following a hearing. The admonition was based upon his conduct in 1998 involving failure to avoid conflicts of interest in a bankruptcy matter. (Mr. Tracy is to be distinguished from Lawrence P. Tracy of Tacoma.)
In 1997, Mr. Tracy represented a client in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy matter. The client reaffirmed the debt on an automobile. In 1998, shortly after the client received the bankruptcy discharge, she notified the automobile lender of further financial problems. Mr. Tracy was representing the automobile lender. The lender repossessed the client's automobile the day before she filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. The two bankruptcy actions were substantially related. Mr. Tracy represented the lender in an adversarial proceeding defending the repossession of his former client's car. Mr. Tracy informed the lender that he had formerly represented the client, but he did not consult with his former client, or obtain her consent to the representation.
Mr. Tracy's conduct violated RPC 1.9, prohibiting a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter from representing another person in a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the former client's interests, unless the former client consents after full disclosure.
Bruce Spanner represented the Bar Association. Harry Ries represented Mr. Tracy. James M. Danielson was the hearing officer.
Admonished
Owen J. Wales (WSBA No. 3381, admitted 1968), of Seattle, was ordered to receive an admonition on June 13, 2003. Mr. Wales's stipulation was approved by the hearing officer. The admonition was based upon his conduct in 2000 and 2002 involving failing to inform the tribunal of all relevant facts when presenting orders in collection matters.
Matter 1: In May 2000, Mr. Wales filed a complaint for an allegedly unpaid medical bill. After receiving opposing counsel's notice of appearance, Mr. Wales filed a motion for an order of default and a default judgment, without giving notice to opposing counsel. Mr. Wales mailed a copy of the judgment to the defendant, but not to opposing counsel. Opposing counsel objected, and Mr. Wales sent him an agreed order vacating the judgment and setting the matter for trial. Opposing counsel struck the reference to trial, signed and returned the order. Meanwhile, Mr. Wales had filed the original "agreed" order, believing that opposing counsel would agree.
Matter 2: In January 2002, Mr. Wales filed a lawsuit. After receiving a copy of opposing counsel's notice of appearance, Mr. Wales filed a motion for an order of default and judgment. Mr. Wales's declaration stated, incorrectly, that the defendant had failed to appear. The court set aside the default judgment and awarded terms and costs.
Mr. Wales's conduct violated RPCs 3.3(f), requiring lawyers, in ex parte proceedings, to inform the tribunal of all relevant facts known to the lawyer that should be disclosed to permit the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse; and 4.2, prohibiting lawyers from communicating with represented parties about the subject of the representation, unless the opposing lawyer consents.
Jean McElroy represented the Bar Association. Daniel Brink represented Mr. Wales. Sidney S. Royer was the hearing officer.
Admonished
Todd W. Wetsel (WSBA No. 20720, admitted 1991), of Vancouver, was admonished by a Review Committee of the Disciplinary Board in November 2003. The admonition was based on his conduct in 2002 involving lack of diligence in a foreclosure matter.
In 2002, Mr. Wetsel agreed to process a mortgage foreclosure action for a credit union. Mr. Wetzel obtained a title report, posted notices, and prepared documents, but did not complete the matter. Mr. Wetsel did not return several phone calls from his client. Mr. Wetsel returned the file to the client and did not charge any fees.
Mr. Wetsel's conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients.
Jean McElroy represented the Bar Association. Mr. Wetsel represented himself.
Back to table of contents >>
