|
|
|
 |  |
 |
 |
WSBA Info | |
|
For Lawyers | |
|
For the Public |  |
 |
For the Media |  |
|
CLE |  |
| | Bench Bar Guidelines | News Releases | Publications | |
|
|
October 2004These 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.
Ricardo A. Guarnero (WSBA No. 18922, admitted 1989), of Seattle, was disbarred, effective July 8, 2004, by an order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2000 involving forging a client's signature and submitting the forgery to the court and opposing counsel. In 2000, Mr. Guarnero agreed to represent a client in her lawsuit against King County alleging a sexual assault while she was an in-patient at a treatment facility. The county's summary judgment motion was set for May 19, 2000. On May 10, 2000, the client drove to the office and signed her declaration. Due to a copy-machine error, the signature page of the client's declaration was omitted from the copy sent to the prosecutor and to the judge. The court considered the client's declaration, denied the summary judgment motion, and ordered Mr. Guarnero to fax a copy of the executed signature page to the court and counsel by 4:30 that afternoon. Unsure he could locate the original, Mr. Guarnero asked his assistant to call the client to have her come down to the office, but didn’t reach her. By the time the client called back, Guarnero told her he had found the signed copy. Mr. Guarnero then forged the client's name on a second copy of the declaration and faxed the forgery to the court and to the prosecutor. Based on expert testimony that the signature was a forgery, the court did not grant reconsideration. It held a hearing on the summary judgment motion at which the client testified, but the court did not rule at that time. The parties settled before she ruled. Mr. Guarnero continued to represent the client after the forgery was discovered and did not advise the client of a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Guarnero's conduct violated RPCs 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 [RCW 9A.60.020, Forgery]; 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; 3.3(a)(1), prohibiting knowingly making a false statement of law or material fact to a tribunal; 3.3(a)(4), prohibiting offering evidence the lawyer knows to be false; 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters; and 1.7(b), prohibiting lawyers from representing clients if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's own interests, unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents in writing after a full disclosure. Thomas V. Harris and Joanne Abelson represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Guarnero. Robert Redman was the hearing officer. Disbarred Lewis M. King Jr. (WSBA No. 10138, admitted 1971), of New York, NY, was disbarred effective October 9, 2003, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline based on an order from the state of Oregon. This discipline was based on his conduct between 1989 and 1993 involving theft and lack of diligence. Matter 1: In 1993, Mr. King misappropriated $70,306.07 from three clients. Matter 2: In 1989, Mr. King represented a client in a residential real estate purchase. The seller was to obtain an FHA loan that the client would assume. The client asked Mr. King to assist the seller in obtaining the loan. In September 1989, Mr. King filed a lawsuit for the client, but allowed the court to dismiss it for lack of prosecution. In August 1991, Mr. King filed a second action on the client's behalf, naming identical defendants and raising identical issues. On March 30, 1992, the court granted the defendants' summary judgment dismissal. Mr. King's conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(2), prohibiting committing a criminal act reflecting adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice; DR 1-102(A)(3), prohibiting engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and DR 6-101(B), prohibiting knowingly neglecting a client's legal matter. Felice Congalton represented the Bar Association. Mr. King represented himself. Disbarred Wm. Guillermo Romero (WSBA No. 18316, admitted 1988), of Moses Lake, was disbarred, effective July 22, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct from 1997 through 2001 involving charging fees while representing clients at public expense, failing to file federal income tax returns, failing to diligently represent a client, failing to deposit a client's funds in a trust account, making misleading statements, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigations. For additional information, please see In re Discipline of Romero, 94 P.3d 939 (2004). Matter 1: In three client matters, Mr. Romero charged attorney's fees even though he was appointed to represent the clients at county expense. Mr. Romero did not explain to the clients that the county was obligated to pay the costs of the representation. In one case, Mr. Romero asked the client's mother for $10,000 to retain a particular mental-health expert. Matter 2: A client gave Mr. Romero a check to cover the client's court costs and crime-victim-compensation assessment. Mr. Romero cashed the check, but did not pay the fees for three months. Mr. Romero did not have a trust account at this time. The client showed a copy of his check to a court clerk. When the clerk contacted Mr. Romero, he made misleading statements about the client's funds. Matter 3: Mr. Romero was appointed to represent a criminal defendant on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. The court denied the motion, and the client told Mr. Romero that he wanted to file an appeal. Mr. Romero did not file the appeal. Mr. Romero wrongly advised the client that his guilty plea waived his right to appeal the court's denial of his motion to withdraw that plea. Matter 4: Mr. Romero was appointed to represent a Mexican national on a criminal charge. Mr. Romero negligently advised the client that he could travel to Mexico without obtaining the necessary bail modifications. Matter 5: Mr. Romero failed to timely file his federal income tax returns for 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. He filed the returns for 1997 through 1999 three days prior to a deposition set in the disciplinary investigation of this matter. The hearing officer found that Mr. Romero would not have filed these returns but for the Association's investigation. Mr. Romero owed approximately $150,000 in back taxes, interest, and penalties. Matter 6: Mr. Romero failed to cooperate with seven disciplinary investigations. Mr. Romero's conduct violated RPCs 1.1, requiring lawyers to provide competent representation to clients; 1.2(a), requiring lawyers to abide by clients' decisions regarding the objectives of the representation; 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4(a), requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters; 1.4(b), requiring lawyers to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary for clients to make informed decisions; 1.5(a), requiring lawyers to charge reasonable fees; 1.14(a), requiring lawyers to place client funds in a trust account; 7.1, prohibiting lawyers from making false or misleading statements about their services; 8.4(b), prohibiting committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyers' honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; 8.4(c), prohibiting engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; 8.4(i), prohibiting committing an act involving moral turpitude; and RLD 2.8(a) [now ELC 5.3(e) and (f)], requiring lawyers to promptly respond to requests for information relevant to matters under investigation. Christine Gray and Jean McElroy represented the Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Romero. James M. Danielson was the hearing officer. Suspended Gary I. Greenbaum (WSBA No. 7355, admitted 1977), of Seattle, was suspended for two years, effective May 27, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a stipulation. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2001 and 2002 involving practicing with a suspended license and violations in three client-litigation matters. Matter 1: In May 1995, Mr. Greenbaum agreed to represent a client in a personal injury claim arising out of an April 1995 automobile accident. When Mr. Greenbaum did not aggressively pursue the claim or contact the client, she retained new counsel. Mr. Greenbaum failed to sign a substitution of counsel pleading or forward the client's file to the new counsel. Mr. Greenbaum willfully violated the court's May 13, 2002, order that he turn over the client's file. In July 2002, the court imposed a judgment of $8,000 against Mr. Greenbaum and ordered additional sanctions for each day he failed to turn over the file. In September 2002, Mr. Greenbaum paid the sanctions. Matter 2: In August 1998, Mr. Greenbaum agreed to represent a client in a personal-injury claim arising out of an automobile accident. The client specifically requested that Mr. Greenbaum settle her case quickly. Mr. Greenbaum initially communicated with the client, but later became unresponsive. In July 2001, Mr. Greenbaum agreed to represent the client in a second personal-injury claim arising out of a second automobile accident. In July 2001, Mr. Greenbaum filed a complaint regarding the first accident, but took no further actions on the client's cases and failed to respond to her calls and letters. Matter 3: On or about July 1, 2002, Mr. Greenbaum notified some of his clients that he had associated another lawyer in their cases. On July 15, 2002, the Supreme Court suspended Mr. Greenbaum's license to practice law for failure to pay his Association membership dues. Mr. Greenbaum did not notify his clients of his suspension, as required by ELC 14.3 [formerly RLD 8.1(a)]. Mr. Greenbaum did not instruct the staff at his office to provide information regarding his suspension or stop announcing him as an attorney. Matter 4: In June 1999, Mr. Greenbaum agreed to represent a client in a personal-injury matter. In June 2001, without informing the client, Mr. Greenbaum filed a lawsuit. During 2002, the court issued orders compelling discovery, awarding attorney's fees against the client, and, finally, dismissing the lawsuit. Mr. Greenbaum did not respond to any of these motions or notify the client of the orders. In December 2002, a collection agency contacted the client about the attorney's fees awarded in the dismissal. Mr. Greenbaum offered to pay the attorney's fees, but did not do so. Mr. Greenbaum's conduct violated RPCs 1.2, requiring lawyers to abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation; 1.3 and 3.2, requiring lawyers to diligently represent clients and expedite litigation consistent with the clients' interests; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters; 8.4(j), prohibiting willful disobedience of court orders; 1.15(a)(1), requiring lawyers to withdraw from representation if continuing will result in an RPC violation; 7.1(a), prohibiting lawyers from making false or misleading communications about their services; and 8.4(a), prohibiting attempting to violate the RPCs through others; and ELC 14.1(c) and 14.3, requiring lawyers to comply with the duties on suspension. Anthony Butler represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Greenbaum. Julian C. Dewell was the hearing officer. Suspended Daniel E. Pohto (WSBA No. 19031, admitted 1989), of Marana, AZ, was suspended for six months and one day, effective July 1, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline based on an order from the state of Arizona. This discipline was based on his violation of the terms of his conditional admission in 2000. In August 2000, Mr. Pohto was conditionally admitted to the State Bar of Arizona. He entered a 12-month contract containing substance-abuse treatment and monitoring conditions and financial conditions. In November 2000 and June 2001, Mr. Pohto violated the conditions of his contract. Mr. Pohto's conduct violated Ariz. R. S. Ct. 51(l). Felice Congalton represented the Bar Association. Mr. Pohto represented himself. Admonished Michael R. Johnson (WSBA No. 2985, admitted 1967), of Lakewood, was admonished following a stipulation approved by the hearing officer. The admonition was based on his conduct in 1990 involving failure to comply with court-ordered discovery in a criminal matter. (Mr. Johnson is to be distinguished from Michael D. Johnson of Little Rock, AR; Michael F. Johnson of Seattle; and Michael L. Johnson of Seattle.) In 1989, Mr. Johnson was one of the assistant prosecutors assigned to a murder case. In 1990, during an interview of a prosecution witness, the witness stated that he had been a law-enforcement informant. In March 1990, the court ordered Mr. Johnson to provide the defense with any written material documenting the witness's contacts with law enforcement. Mr. Johnson told the court he would contact a specific detective, but did not make any contact. Mr. Johnson failed to discover that the witness had stolen both drugs and money, and was no longer able to act as an informant. Mr. Johnson was aware that the witness had testified in another trial, but failed to disclose this information to the defense. The trial testimony included the witness's admission that he had prior felony convictions for fraud and burglary. The defense was unaware of these convictions. In March 1990, Mr. Johnson also inaccurately stated in a declaration that the witness was in the federal witness-protection program. Mr. Johnson's conduct negligently violated RPCs 3.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from knowingly disobeying obligations under the rules of the tribunal; 3.4(d), requiring lawyers to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with legally proper discovery requests; and 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Jonathan H. Burke and Scott G. Busby represented the Bar Association. Rebecca Roe represented Mr. Johnson. Vicki Lee Anne Parker was the hearing officer. Admonished Charles A. Johnson Jr. (WSBA No. 3504, admitted 1971), of Seattle, was admonished following a stipulation approved by the disciplinary board. The admonition was based on conduct in 2001, involving advancing funds to a client during litigation. (Mr. Johnson is to be distinguished from the late Charles R. Johnson of Ellensburg, Charles V. Johnson of Seattle, the late Charles W. Johnson of Tacoma, and Justice Charles W. Johnson of Olympia.) In September 2000, Mr. Johnson filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition for his client, a family-owned restaurant. The client's reorganization would be jeopardized if it was unable to pay rent. During spring 2001, the client was not able to pay rent. Mr. Johnson personally advanced two months' rent payments to his client. At the time of the loan, there was no specific agreement regarding repayment. Mr. Johnson voluntarily disclosed the loan to the U.S. Trustee's Office, the Department of Revenue, and the Bankruptcy Court. He also agreed to subordinate his loan to other creditors. The client's reorganization plan was not confirmed, and the bankruptcy was dismissed. In November 2001, Mr. Johnson filed a second Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition for the client. Mr. Johnson waived all pre-petition debts and all unpaid attorney's fees from the first bankruptcy. After the grievance was filed, Mr. Johnson withdrew and assisted the client in finding new counsel. The court approved Mr. Johnson's fees in this matter. Mr. Johnson's conduct violated RPC 1.8(e), prohibiting advancing or guaranteeing funds to a client in connection with pending litigation, other than costs and expenses that the client ultimately pays. Jonathan Burke represented the Bar Association. Mr. Johnson represented himself. Admonished Kevin M. Kopra (WSBA No. 29651, admitted 1999), of Seattle, was admonished by a review committee of the disciplinary board. The admonition was based on his conduct in 2002 involving lack of diligence in a bankruptcy matter. In April 2002, Mr. Kopra agreed to represent a client in a bankruptcy matter. In July 2002, Mr. Kopra learned that the court needed savings-plan documents from the client to confirm the bankruptcy plan. The client faxed the documents to Mr. Kopra. Mr. Kopra failed to file an amended plan, even though the client called and the court sent notices. The client completed the bankruptcy on her own. Mr. Kopra's conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; and 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters. Joanne Abelson represented the Bar Association. Mr. Kopra represented himself. Admonished John L. McKean (WSBA No. 13294, admitted 1983), of Moses Lake, was admonished effective December 22, 2003, following a stipulation approved by the hearing officer. The admonition was based on his conduct in 2001, involving a discovery violation in a criminal matter. In October 2001, Mr. McKean represented a client charged with second-degree rape and violation of a domestic-violence protection order. Mr. McKean prepared a subpoena duces tecum requiring the victim to produce items and documents at his office by October 15, 2001. The subpoena stated that if the victim failed to comply with the subpoena, she was required to appear in court on October 16 to explain why she should not be held in contempt of court. Mr. McKean's legal assistant left the subpoena at the victim's residence on October 12 or 13. Mr. McKean delivered a copy of the subpoena to the prosecuting attorney on October 15. On October 16, during a previously scheduled hearing, Mr. McKean raised the issue of the victim's failure to comply with the subpoena. The subpoena did not comply with the notice requirements of the criminal discovery rules. The court issued a protective order prohibiting Mr. McKean's client from seeking the items and documents without a court order. Later, the court found that testimony about the evidence sought was relevant at trial. By failing to provide the third party with a reasonable time to comply with or object to the subpoena duces tecum, Mr. McKean's conduct violated RPC 4.4, prohibiting lawyers from obtaining evidence in a way that violates the legal rights of a third party. Jean K. McElroy represented the Bar Association. Michael A. Frost represented Mr. McKean. Joseph Nappi was the hearing officer. Admonished Thanh X. Nguyen (WSBA No. 18573, admitted 1989), of Seattle, was admonished following a stipulation approved by the hearing officer. The admonition was based on his conduct in 1997 involving making an agreement prospectively limiting his malpractice liability to his client in a personal-injury matter. In 1997, Mr. Nguyen represented a client in a personal-injury matter. In March 1997, Mr. Nguyen provided his client with a Power of Attorney document that included the following language: "[client] holds attorney Thanh Xuan Nguyen completely and entirely harmless for any actions take by Attorney Nguyen while acting under this power of attorney." Mr. Nguyen did not advise his client to seek independent counsel prior to signing this document. Mr. Nguyen's conduct violated RPCs 1.8(h), prohibiting lawyers from making agreements prospectively limiting the lawyer's malpractice liability to the client without first advising the client in writing that independent representation is appropriate; and 1.4(b), requiring lawyers to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. James S. Rogers represented the Bar Association. Joseph J. Ganz represented Mr. Nguyen. Randolph I. Gordon was the hearing officer. Admonished Dennis F. Olsen (WSBA No. 22519, admitted 1993), of Everett, was admonished following a stipulation approved by the disciplinary board. The admonition was based on his conduct in 2000, involving lack of diligence in an immigration matter. In April 1999, Mr. Olsen agreed to represent a client subject to INS removal proceedings. Although the client was married to a U.S. citizen, the INS instituted removal proceedings prior to the marriage. On June 8, 2000, the INS denied the client's petition. Mr. Olsen attempted to file an appeal on two occasions, but the INS rejected his check. On August 31, 2000, an immigration judge issued a voluntary departure order. The order stated that any appeal was due by October 2, 2000. Mr. Olsen sent the appeal on October 8, 2000, and it was received by INS on October 10, 2000. The INS denied the client's appeal as untimely. The client retained new counsel to pursue a motion to reopen the case. Mr. Olsen's conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients. Marsha Matsumoto and Jean K. McElroy represented the Bar Association. Mr. Olsen represented himself. Admonished Kenneth B. Shellan (WSBA No. 10954, admitted 1980), of Palm Springs, CA, was ordered to receive two admonitions following a stipulation approved by the hearing officer. The admonitions were based on his conduct in 1999 involving failure to adequately supervise nonlawyer assistants, and misleading advertising. Matter 1: In 1998, Mr. Shellan's law firm agreed to represent a client on a medical-malpractice claim. In April 1999, before the client's case settled, the firm's managing lawyer left the firm. The managing lawyer told the client that she would remain a client of the firm. The managing lawyer also provided the firm with a withdrawal letter to send to the client. The firm did not send the withdrawal letter to the client until two months later. During this time, Mr. Shellan lived in California and rarely visited the office. He maintained telephone and e-mail contact, and believed that this provided effective management safeguards. Matter 2: Mr. Shellan placed a firm advertisement stating "no recovery — no fee." The advertisement did not disclose that clients would be responsible for paying litigation costs. Additionally, the advertisement featured Mr. Shellan's photograph and credentials without disclosing that he was semiretired from practice and did not litigate cases for those responding to the advertisement. Mr. Shellan's conduct violated RPCs 5.3(a), requiring that law-firm partners make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that nonlawyer assistants' conduct is compatible with the lawyer's professional obligations; and 7.1(a), prohibiting lawyers from making false or misleading communications about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. Linda B. Eide represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Shellan. Lawrence R. Mills was the hearing officer. Admonished Victoria N. Smith (WSBA No. 26569, admitted 1996), of Bellevue, was admonished following a stipulation approved by the disciplinary board. The admonition was based on her conduct in 2000 involving filing an inappropriate lien. In March 2000, while Ms. Smith was an associate in a law firm, she filed a Notice of Attorney's Lien against a client's real property. When Ms. Smith learned that the client had quitclaimed his interest in the property to a third person, she asked a member of the firm about removing the lien. The firm member determined that the lien should not be removed. Ms. Smith also discovered later that liens based on the attorney lien statute cannot be asserted against real property. Ms. Smith relied on the firm member's instruction in filing the lien, and failed to perform her own independent investigation. Ms. Smith's conduct violated RPCs 3.1, prohibiting lawyers from bringing or defending proceedings unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous; and 4.4, prohibiting using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person. Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Ms. Smith represented herself. Admonished Karen L. Unger (WSBA No. 11671, admitted 1981), of Port Angeles, was admonished following a hearing. The admonition was based on her conduct in 2002 involving failing to promptly respond to the Bar Association's request for information relevant to a grievance. In August 2002, the Bar Association requested that Ms. Unger provide documentation regarding a transaction with a client. Ms. Unger accepted title to an automobile in partial satisfaction of her attorney's fees. The Association asked for documentation regarding the title transfer, gifting, and tax transactions. In November and December 2002, Ms. Unger, through counsel, objected to producing tax records. Ms. Unger's conduct violated ELC 5.3(e), requiring lawyers to provide prompt responses to inquiries and requests made under the rules for information relevant to grievances or matters under investigation. Linda B. Eide represented the Bar Association. Michael E. Schwartz represented Ms. Unger. Scott M. Ellerby was the hearing officer.
|
