September 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
Lee Edward Karavitis (WSBA No. 5688, admitted 1974), of Casper, WY, was disbarred by order of the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline based on an order for similar discipline from the state of Wyoming. This discipline was based on his criminal convictions.

In July 1995, Mr. Karavitis was convicted of one count of conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 287 and three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 287, submitting false claims to the United States.

Mr. Karavitis's conduct violated RPC 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; and (c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation.

Marsha Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. Mr. Karavitis represented himself.

Disbarred
Peter A. Slowiaczek (WSBA No. 23649, admitted 1994), of Lakewood, was disbarred, effective May 11, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court, following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2000 and 2001 involving theft of client funds and making false statements to the federal government.

In September 2001, Mr. Slowiaczek's payroll check to his administrative assistant was not honored by his bank. In October 2001, Mr. Slowiaczek paid his assistant from client funds in his pooled client trust account. At this time, Mr. Slowiaczek had negative balances in his office account, his personal bank account, and his own funds in his pooled client trust account. Mr. Slowiaczek provided inconsistent testimony to explain his use of his client trust account that the hearing officer found not credible. Mr. Slowiaczek replaced the trust funds with a back-dated check.

In November 2001, Mr. Slowiaczek issued advance fee deposit refund checks to two clients. He issued these checks from his pooled client trust account even though he deposited the clients' funds into his office checking account. Neither of these clients had any funds in Mr. Slowiaczek's trust account. Mr. Slowiaczek replaced these funds in February 2002.

In March 2002, Mr. Slowiaczek used more than $7,000 in client funds from his pooled client trust account to pay his mortgage. Mr. Slowiaczek offered inconsistent and noncredible testimony on this issue during the hearing.

In May 2002, Mr. Slowiaczek received an advance fee deposit check. He failed to deposit this check into any bank account. Later in May, Mr. Slowiaczek wrote a check transferring this amount from his pooled client trust account to his office account. Mr. Slowiaczek offered inconsistent and noncredible testimony about this transaction during the hearing.

On May 6, 2002, Mr. Slowiaczek wrote a $1,700 check to himself from his pooled client trust account. Mr. Slowiaczek knew that he did not have funds in this account and that he was exerting unauthorized control over client funds. Mr. Slowiaczek's intentional acts depriving clients of their funds in his pooled client trust account constitute theft.

Mr. Slowiaczek commingled his client trust account funds and his personal funds. During the time period of the audit, Mr. Slowiaczek placed more than $50,000 of his own money in his client trust account, and paid more than $40,000 of business or personal expenses from the client trust account.

Mr. Slowiaczek deposited some client advance fee deposits into his office account rather than his client trust account. He treated these funds as his own prior to performing any work. Mr. Slowiaczek did not enter written fee agreements with clients, and refunded money from his client trust account to conceal this conduct.

Beginning in 1996, Mr. Slowiaczek represented a client in an offer and compromise process with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In November 2000, the client received more than $57,000 from a lawsuit settlement. Mr. Slowiaczek did not represent the client in this lawsuit, but allowed the client to use his trust account to hide the funds from the IRS. Mr. Slowiaczek sent several payments to the client and the client's family members from his trust account. Mr. Slowiaczek also failed to disclose the settlement funds to the IRS and provided false explanations for funds in at least two letters written during this time. Mr. Slowiaczek's conduct constituted two federal felonies.

Mr. Slowiaczek's conduct violated RPCs 8.4(b), prohibiting committing a criminal act [RCW 9A.56.030-.040, First and Second Degree Theft; 18 U.S.C. § 1001, knowingly and willfully making a materially false or fraudulent statement or representation to the Federal Government; and 26 U.S.C. § 7206, knowingly and willfully make a false statement or conceal property in connection with a tax matter]; 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation; 8.4(i), prohibiting committing an act involving moral turpitude reflecting disregard for the rule of law; and 1.14(a), requiring lawyers to deposit all client funds in a client trust account that does not contain the lawyer's funds, maintain complete records of these accounts, and promptly deliver client funds to clients upon request.

Christine Gray represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Slowiaczek. Gregory A. Dahl was the hearing officer.

Suspended
John Grahame Bell (WSBA No. 4209, admitted 1968), of Seattle, was suspended for 60 days effective May 11, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2000 and 2001, involving lack of diligence in a family law matter. (Mr. Bell is to be distinguished from John E. Bell of Olympia and John H. Bell of Tacoma.)

In October 2000, Mr. Bell agreed to represent a client in a child-support-modification proceeding. The court granted Mr. Bell a continuance to respond to a pending motion. On November 3, Mr. Bell asked for another continuance because he was not prepared. The court continued the hearing to December 8 and awarded attorney's fees to the opposing party. The court continued the hearing to January 5, 2001, because it had not received Mr. Bell's response. Mr. Bell did not appear for the hearing or file a response. The client did not appear, because Mr. Bell told her the hearing was on January 12. The court conducted the hearing, raised Mr. Bell's client's child support approximately $700 per month, and awarded the opposing party attorney's fees. Mr. Bell's client file contained a supplemental declaration from his client explaining a sharp decrease in her income, which Mr. Bell did not file.

Mr. Bell's conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; and 3.2, requiring lawyers to expedite a client's litigation.

Kevin Bank represented the Bar Association. Mr. Bell represented himself. James M. Danielson was the hearing officer.

Suspended
David E. Fennell (WSBA No. 15274, admitted 1985), of Bellevue, was suspended for one year, effective May 11, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct between 1996 and 1998 involving marking up costs in nonjudicial foreclosure actions.

Mr. Fennell supervised and conducted nonjudicial foreclosures for his firm's Washington and Oregon clients. Mr. Fennell, through his firm, contracted with outside vendors for posting of notices required in real property nonjudicial foreclosure actions. In February 1996, Mr. Fennell and the other firm partner incorporated Posters, Inc. (Posters). Posters contracted with other outside vendors to provide posting services to the law firm's foreclosure clients. The law firm employees coordinated the posting services before and during Posters' existence.

Posters marked up the cost of the posting service between 50 and 100 percent ($10 to $20). The costs for the posting services, even after the 100 percent markup, were within the range of charges for these services in the geographical area. Firm employees created invoices with these marked-up costs and placed them in the client files, but did not send them to the clients. Mr. Fennell and his firm disclosed a financial interest in vendors to some, but not all, clients. In May 1998, the firm disclosed the cost markup for the first time. The disclosure stated "Posters marks up the amount charged by its subcontractors to cover overhead allocated to Posters by the law firm, risk undertaken by Posters and profit." The firm did not allocate overhead to Posters, although it intended to do so.

Mr. Fennell's conduct violated RPCs 1.8(a), prohibiting knowingly obtaining a pecuniary interest adverse to the client, unless the transaction terms are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed in writing to the client and the client consents, after a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel; 1.5(b), requiring lawyers who have not regularly represented a client or if the fee agreement is substantially different from previous agreements, to communicate the basis of the fee and factors in its determination to the client, preferably in writing; and 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

John R. Ruhl and Jean K. McElroy represented the Bar Association. William E. Fitzharris represented Mr. Fennell. Geoffrey G. Revelle was the hearing officer.

Suspended
John M. Haggerty (WSBA No. 9179, admitted 1979), of Arlington, was suspended for three years by order of the Washington State Supreme Court approving a stipulation, effective June 13, 2003. Mr. Haggerty agreed to submit his resignation to the WSBA on the day his suspension is completed, to take effect immediately. He agreed to the stipulation without admitting all of the facts or misconduct. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2000 while acting as escrow agent for a real estate and stock sale transaction.

In March 2000, the parties to a real estate transaction and stock purchase retained Mr. Haggerty to act as escrow agent. On March 30, 2000, Mr. Haggerty deposited the buyer's $9,000 earnest money check into his trust account. In June 2000, the buyer asked that Mr. Haggerty loan him back the $9,000. Mr. Haggerty returned the buyer's money without notice to the seller. In July 2000, Mr. Haggerty re-deposited the buyer's $9,000.

In April 2000, the buyer sent Mr. Haggerty a $10,000 check. Mr. Haggerty faxed a copy of the check to the buyer's agent. Mr. Haggerty did not deposit the buyer's check into his trust account, because the buyer or an agent told him not to do so. When the seller asked Mr. Haggerty about this deposit, Mr. Haggerty stated falsely that he had never received this check.

Mr. Haggerty's conduct violated RPCs 1.14(a), requiring lawyers to deposit client funds [RPC 1.14(d) provides that escrow and other funds held by a lawyer incident to closing of a real estate transaction are client funds subject to this rule] in an IOLTA account; 1.14 (b)(3), requiring lawyers to maintain complete records of client funds in the lawyer's possession and render appropriate accountings; 1.14(d), requiring lawyers to promptly pay or deliver client funds upon request; 1.7(a), prohibiting lawyers from representing a client if the representation will be directly adverse to another client, unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the clients consent in writing after full disclosure; 1.7(b), prohibiting lawyers from representing a client if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client; 4.1(a), prohibiting lawyers from knowingly making false statements of material fact or law to third persons; and 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and ELC 5.3(e)(1), requiring lawyers to promptly respond to inquiries made for information relevant to disciplinary grievances.

Kevin Bank represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Haggerty. Bert Markovich was the hearing officer.

Suspended
Allen C. Jorgensen (WSBA No. 23671, admitted 1994), of Redlands, CA, was suspended for 75 days and reprimanded, effective May 4, 2004, 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 conduct in 2000, involving acts of misconduct in bankruptcy and real property matters.

Matter 1: In August 2000, a client paid Mr. Jorgensen $1,000 to file a lawsuit regarding delivery of a motor home. Between August 25 and October 18, 2000, Mr. Jorgensen failed to return the client's calls for information on the status of his lawsuit. On October 18, 2000, the client sent Mr. Jorgensen a letter requesting a full refund and return of all documents. Mr. Jorgensen did not respond to the client's letter.

Matter 2: This matter includes eight client matters and an allegation that Mr. Jorgensen failed to comply with a prior disciplinary order. In seven matters, Mr. Jorgensen represented the clients in bankruptcy petitions. In five of these matters, Mr. Jorgensen accepted the clients' money, did no work, and failed to refund unearned fees or return the clients' files. Mr. Jorgensen did not notify these clients that he was withdrawing from the representation. In two other bankruptcy matters, Mr. Jorgensen filed incomplete bankruptcy petitions, which the court dismissed.

In one client matter, Mr. Jorgensen agreed to assist a client in obtaining clear title to a real property she inherited. The client delivered the original will, death certificate, and property deed to Mr. Jorgensen. Mr. Jorgensen failed to do any work on the client's case. He did not return the client's original documents or unearned fees.

A prior disciplinary order required Mr. Jorgensen to attend ethics school. Although the Probation Unit sent Mr. Jorgensen a letter reminding him of this obligation, he failed to provide proof of attendance.

Mr. Jorgensen's conduct violated California Business and Professions Code §§ 6068(m), requiring lawyers to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries from clients; 6068(i), requiring lawyers to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation; and 6103, requiring lawyers to comply with the terms of disciplinary orders; and California Rules of Professional Conduct 3-700(D)(1), requiring lawyers to promptly release, upon termination of representation, all client papers and property upon request; 3-700(D)(2), requiring lawyers to promptly return unearned advance-fee deposits; 3-700(A)(2), requiring lawyers to take reasonable steps to protect a client's interests upon withdrawal from the representation; and 3-110(a), prohibiting lawyers from intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failing to perform legal services with competence.

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

Suspended
Timothy F. Perry (WSBA No. 15623, admitted 1986), of San Francisco, CA, was suspended for 23 months and for 30 days, effective June 1, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline based on two orders for similar discipline from the state of California. This discipline was based on his lack of diligence in a litigation matter between 1995 and 1997, and willful failure to comply with a court order in 2002.

Matter 1: In July 1995, Mr. Perry agreed to represent a client in a claim against various security brokers. Mr. Perry filed the client's complaint and arbitration was scheduled for December 1996. Mr. Perry then notified the client that the arbitration had been continued, and indicated he would inform the client of the new date. Mr. Perry had no further contact with his client. The arbitration was continued twice due to Mr. Perry's failure to comply with discovery. In June 1997, opposing counsel scheduled a motion to dismiss based on Mr. Perry's repeated failure to comply with discovery deadlines. Mr. Perry did not notify his client of the discovery dispute or the arbitration date. Neither Mr. Perry nor his client appeared for the arbitration. The arbitrator dismissed the client's claims. The client learned of the dismissal during the disciplinary investigation.

Matter 2: On April 5, 2002, the Supreme Court of California ordered Mr. Perry to comply with California Rule of Court 955, the rule regarding duties upon suspension. On May 1, 2002, the State Bar of California sent Mr. Perry a copy of the order, but it was returned "moved, left no address." The court ordered Mr. Perry to comply with the Rule by June 15, 2002. Mr. Perry did not comply until August 30, 2002.

Mr. Perry's conduct violated California Rules of Professional Conduct 3-110(A), prohibiting lawyers from intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failing to perform legal services with competence; and 3-700(D)(2), requiring lawyers to promptly refund unearned advance fee payments; and California Business and Professions Code §§ 6068(m), requiring lawyers to promptly respond to client-status inquiries and keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments in their matters; 6103, prohibiting willful violation of court orders; and 6068(i), requiring lawyers to cooperate and participate in disciplinary investigations.

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

Suspended
Gregory Scott Wilson (WSBA No. 12012, admitted 1981), of Tacoma, was suspended for nine months, effective May 13, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. This discipline was based on his failure to comply with the terms of a prior disciplinary order. (Mr. Wilson is to be distinguished from Gregory M. Wilson of Greenacres.)

In May 2000, the Washington State Supreme Court approved Mr. Wilson's stipulation to a 30-day suspension. The stipulation required Mr. Wilson to obtain malpractice insurance, or provide written notification of rejection by three companies. Mr. Wilson was also required to make monthly payments to the client involved in that matter.

In April 2003, the Washington State Supreme Court approved Mr. Wilson's stipulation to a three-month suspension for failing to comply with the conditions in the May 2000 order. Mr. Wilson returned to practice on July 1, 2003. Although he paid the required restitution, the payments were not timely and not paid pursuant to electronic transfer as ordered. Mr. Wilson did not provide written notification of rejection by three malpractice insurers by the date required. The hearing officer found Mr. Wilson's conduct to be a continuation of the type of conduct in the May 2000 suspension.

Mr. Wilson's conduct violated Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct (ELC) 12.8(b), stating that failure to comply with a condition of probation may be grounds for discipline.

Anne I. Seidel represented the Bar Association. Brett A. Purtzer represented Mr. Wilson. James M. Danielson was the hearing officer.

Reprimanded
Roger A. Castelda (WSBA No. 5571, admitted 1974), of Tonasket, received a reprimand effective March 1, 2004, following a stipulation approved by the hearing officer. This discipline is based on his conduct in 2000 involving conflict of interest in a family-law matter.

In 2000, Mr. Castelda represented both parties in a marital-dissolution matter. Earlier, Mr. Castelda had drafted estate-planning documents and handled a bankruptcy for the clients. An associate in Mr. Castelda's office asked the husband to waive any conflicts of interest, so the firm could represent the wife. Neither client waived the conflict or consented to the representation in writing. The clients were divorced in April 2001. Mr. Castelda, or his office, sent the wife the Qualified Domestic Relations Order required by the terms of the decree approximately two years after the dissolution was final. After the decree was final, the parties had questions about tax liability for returns they did not file during their marriage. Mr. Castelda assisted the husband with a tax appeal but did not advise the wife about her potential liability.

Mr. Castelda's conduct violated RPCs 1.7, prohibiting lawyers from representing a client in a matter if the representation will be directly adverse to another client, unless the lawyer reasonably believes that the representation will not be adversely affected and the clients consent in writing after a full disclosure; 1.10, prohibiting lawyers associated in a firm from knowingly representing a client when any of the lawyers in the firm would be prohibited from the representation if practicing alone; 1.3, requiring lawyers to provide diligent representation to clients; and 1.4, requiring lawyers to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

Nancy Bickford Miller represented the Bar Association. Mr. Castelda represented himself. Erik S. Bakke Sr. was the hearing officer.

Reprimanded
Michael Danko (WSBA No. 14312, admitted 1984), of Seattle, received a reprimand effective June 30, 2004, following a stipulation approved by the hearing officer. This discipline is based on his conduct in 2000 and 2001 involving conflict of interest and loaning money to a client in a litigation matter.

In January 2000, Mr. Danko agreed to represent two clients in personal-injury claims against a trucking company (Company). In January 2001, Mr. Danko loaned client B money to pay his union dues. Mr. Danko prepared a waiver-of-conflict-of-interest form stating that if a conflict developed, he would withdraw from representing both clients. In November 2001, client A's claim settled. She did not sign the conflict-waiver form until July 2002. In May 2001, client B discharged Mr. Danko and retained new counsel. In December 2001, client A told Mr. Danko that client B overstated his injuries. Mr. Danko advised the client that she could contact the Company. At client A's request, Mr. Danko arranged a meeting between client A and the Company's lawyer. Client A gave deposition testimony adverse to client B's interests. Mr. Danko represented client A at this deposition.

Mr. Danko's conduct violated RPCs 1.8(e), prohibiting loaning money to a client while representing the client in contemplated or pending litigation, except costs of litigation; 1.7(b), prohibiting representing a client if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the clients consent in writing after a full disclosure; 1.9(a), prohibiting a lawyer who has formerly represented a client from representing another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client, unless the former client consents in writing after consultation and a full disclosure of the material facts.

Scott G. Busby represented the Bar Association. John T. Dalton represented Mr. Danko. Gregory A. Dahl was the hearing officer.

Reprimanded
Robert M. Leen (WSBA No. 14208, admitted 1984), of Seattle, received a reprimand effective June 4, 2004, following a stipulation approved by the hearing officer. This discipline is based on his conduct in 1995 involving conflict of interest in a criminal matter and in 2002 involving negligent misrepresentation during the disciplinary investigation.

In 1995, Mr. Leen agreed to represent two criminal defendants, clients A and B. Client A was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and client B with possession of a firearm following a felony conviction. In December 1995, the prosecutor offered client A a plea agreement that required the client to "provide truthful testimony if needed." Client B was listed as a potential witness against client A, although the prosecutor told Mr. Leen that he did not actually intend to call client B. Because Mr. Leen represented both defendants, he could have been precluded from calling one to testify in defense of the other. A jury found client A guilty. Client A then filed a motion to vacate his sentence, claiming that Mr. Leen's simultaneous representation caused an actual conflict of interest. In July 2002, Mr. Leen gave deposition testimony on this matter. Mr. Leen testified that he did not discuss the potential conflict with client A, and that he did not disclose the conflict to the judge. In letters to the Bar Association, Mr. Leen made conflicting statements. Mr. Leen's client file was destroyed prior to his letter and his memory could have faded. Mr. Leen's letter also referred the Association to the deposition transcript.

Mr. Leen's conduct violated RPCs 1.7(b), prohibiting lawyers from representing a client if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client; and 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and ELC 5.3(e), requiring lawyers to promptly respond to requests for information relevant to grievances or matters under investigation.

Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. David Allen and Cassandra L. Stamm represented Mr. Leen. Carolyn A. Lake was the hearing officer.

Reprimanded
Mary E. Reeves (WSBA No. 17721, admitted 1988), of Vashon, received a reprimand effective June 29, 2004, following a hearing. This discipline is based on her conduct in 2001, involving making a statement that could have been misleading in a public-defense matter.

In January 2001, Ms. Reeves was assigned to represent a criminal defendant. In March 2001, the client entered guilty pleas to two charges. Ms. Reeves believed her client might have mental problems, and she wanted to obtain a mental evaluation for him. While the case was set for sentencing, an assistant prepared the necessary paperwork for appointment of the expert at public expense. Ms. Reeves signed the paperwork and wrote in that the case was set for trial. Ms. Reeves knew this statement was not true. The paperwork was forwarded to the administrator of the Office of the Public Defender. Prior to any decision, and for other reasons, the paperwork was withdrawn. At a later time, substitute counsel re-submitted the request with the correct status and the request was granted.

Ms. Reeves' conduct violated RPCs 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Leslie Ching Allen represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Ms. Reeves. Geoffrey G. Revelle was the hearing officer.

Reprimanded
Daniel A. Suchman (WSBA No. 30832, admitted 2000), of Bainbridge Island, received a reprimand effective June 17, 2004, following a stipulation approved by the hearing officer. This discipline is based on his conduct in 2002 involving discovery violations and practicing law beyond the authority of his limited license.

In November 2000, Mr. Suchman was admitted to the limited practice of law in Washington as in-house counsel for a Florida corporation. Mr. Suchman received a full license to practice law in the state of Washington on March 28, 2003.

In March 2002, Mr. Suchman, through counsel, filed a defamation lawsuit. In June 2002, Mr. Suchman filed a "Notice of Appearance as Pro Se Attorney." In August 2002, opposing counsel deposed Ms. W, a witness in the defamation case. At the deposition, Mr. Suchman's counsel introduced himself as counsel for Mr. Suchman and the witness, and then left the deposition. Mr. Suchman then introduced himself as "attorney pro se and as attorney-general counsel for Ms. W, the deponent today." The defamation lawsuit was unrelated to the Florida corporation, and Mr. Suchman was not admitted in Washington pro hac vice. During the deposition, Mr. Suchman made many objections and advised the witness that she did not need to answer many questions. Opposing counsel filed a motion to strike the deposition based on Mr. Suchman's obstructive behavior. Mr. Suchman voluntarily dismissed his complaint prior to a ruling on the motion.

Mr. Suchman's conduct violated RPC 5.5(a), prohibiting a lawyer from practicing in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulations of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; and 3.4(d), requiring lawyers to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with legally proper discovery requests by opposing parties.

Linda B. Eide represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Suchman. Peter A. Matty was the hearing officer.

Reprimanded
Jeffrey L. Willis (WSBA No. 27750, admitted 1998), of Thousand Oaks, CA, was reprimanded, effective May 24, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline based on an order for similar discipline from the state of California. This discipline was based on his conduct between 1996 and 1998, involving lack of competence in two personal-injury matters.

Matter 1: In May 1997, Mr. Willis filed a lawsuit for a client in a personal-injury matter. On April 3, 1998, the court sent Mr. Willis an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As of this date, Mr. Willis had not served the lawsuit. Mr. Willis did not attend the show cause hearing, oppose the motion to dismiss, or notify his client of the dismissal. Mr. Willis took prompt and appropriate steps to reinstate the lawsuit.

Matter 2: In February 1996, Mr. Willis filed a lawsuit for a client in a personal-injury matter. The defendant answered the lawsuit in April 1996. After this date, Mr. Willis did not actively prosecute the client's case. In August 1996, the court sent Mr. Willis an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Mr. Willis did not attend the show cause hearing, oppose the motion, or notify his client of the dismissal. Mr. Willis did not take steps to protect his client's interests after the dismissal.

Mr. Willis's conduct violated California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-110(A), requiring lawyers to competently represent their clients; and California Business and Professions Code § 6068(m), requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments in clients' cases.

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

Admonished
Grant C. Broer (WSBA No. 25588, admitted 1995), of Vancouver, WA, was admonished by a review committee of the disciplinary board. The admonition was based on his conduct in 2003 involving approving an order without client permission in a family-law matter.

In April 2002, Mr. Broer agreed to represent a client in a marital-dissolution matter. In July 2003, the client told Mr. Broer that he wanted to appeal a court ruling, because the court had not addressed attorney's fees or medical expenses. On July 16, 2003, Mr. Broer filed a notice of withdrawal that would take effect on July 29. On July 24, Mr. Broer received proposed findings from opposing counsel that contained provisions requiring the client to pay attorney's fees and medical expenses. Mr. Broer approved the order for entry without notice of presentation, without notice to his client. Mr. Broer did not send a copy of the order to the client. The client learned of the order after the time for reconsideration had passed.

Mr. Broer's conduct violated RPC 1.2, requiring lawyers to abide by their clients' decisions regarding the objectives of the representation; 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep their clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters; and 1.15(d), requiring lawyers to take reasonable steps to protect clients' interests upon withdrawal.

Jonathan Burke represented the Bar Association. Mr. Broer represented himself.

Admonished
Timothy J. Dack (WSBA No. 18870, admitted 1989), of Vancouver, WA, was admonished by a review committee of the disciplinary board. The admonition was based on his conduct in 2003 involving communicating with a represented party in a bankruptcy matter.

In 2003, Mr. Dack agreed to obtain an appointment for a real estate agent in bankruptcy court. The seller was Mr. Dack's friend, but the friend was represented by counsel in this transaction. Mr. Dack talked to his friend directly about the bankruptcy filing. Mr. Dack believed his conversation was as a friend instead of as a lawyer.

Mr. Dack's conduct violated RPC 4.2, prohibiting lawyers from communicating with represented parties about the subject matter of the representation, without the other lawyer's consent.

Joanne Abelson represented the Bar Association. Christopher Hardman represented Mr. Dack.

Admonished
Helene Ellenbogen (WSBA No. 19886, admitted 1990), of Seattle, was admonished following a stipulation approved by the disciplinary board. The admonition was based on her conduct in 2000 involving lack of diligence in a family-law matter.

Ms. Ellenbogen represented a client in a dissolution matter. In February, opposing counsel arranged a May 16, 2000, settlement conference, and the judge confirmed the date in writing. In March, Ms. Ellenbogen's client told her he was too sick to attend the settlement conference. In early May, Ms. Ellenbogen's office staff told opposing counsel that neither Ms. Ellenbogen nor her client agreed to the settlement conference date. Opposing counsel refused to continue the conference, indicating she would ask for terms if Ms. Ellenbogen's client failed to appear. On May 11, 2000, Ms. Ellenbogen received a letter from the client's psychologist stating that the client's health issues would interfere with his participation in the settlement conference. Ms. Ellenbogen did not provide this information to opposing counsel until after the settlement conference. Neither Ms. Ellenbogen nor her client appeared for the settlement conference. At the time of the conference, Ms. Ellenbogen believed her actions were in her client's best interest. The client terminated Ms. Ellenbogen's representation prior to trial. At trial, the court awarded fees against the client for opposing counsel's time preparing for the settlement conference. Ms. Ellenbogen initially refused the client's request that she reimburse him for the fees.

Ms. Ellenbogen's conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients.

Leslie Ching Allen represented the Bar Association. Ms. Ellenbogen represented herself.

Admonished
Randolph L. Finney (WSBA No. 19893, admitted 1990), of Seattle, was admonished following a stipulation approved by the disciplinary board. The admonition was based on his conduct in 2001, involving charging an unreasonable fee in a family law matter.

In 2001, Mr. Finney represented a client with serious substance-abuse problems. Later that year, Mr. Finney agreed to represent the client in a dissolution-decree modification. The client signed a written fee agreement providing for a $3,000 nonrefundable fee. Mr. Finney met with the client a few times and did minimal work on her case. The client had a treatment relapse in December 2001, making communication and progress on her case difficult. In March 2002, Mr. Finney closed the client's modification file. The client asked Mr. Finney to return her documents and refund her fee. Mr. Finney initially refused to return the nonrefundable fee, but later agreed to do so.

Mr. Finney's conduct violated RPC 1.5, requiring lawyers to charge reasonable fees.

Nancy Bickford Miller represented the Bar Association. Michael A. Nesteroff represented Mr. Finney. Veronica Alicea-Galvan was the hearing officer.

Admonished
Joseph R. Jackson (WSBA No. 12929, admitted 1982), of East Wenatchee, was admonished following a stipulation approved by the hearing officer. The admonition was based on his conduct in 2000 involving making statements about a judge's qualification or integrity in a collection action. (Mr. Jackson is to be distinguished from Joseph A. Jackson of San Francisco, CA.)

In 2000, Mr. Jackson represented a client in a collection matter. In a brief filed with the court, Mr. Jackson stated, "[e]ither the judge chose to disbelieve all the testimony of any sort presented by all of [garnishee employer's] witnesses and disbelieve the record and facts before the Court . . . or the Judge was in some manner intentionally biased against the [garnishee employer]. Prior to going on the bench the Judge was a partner in the same law firm as [the garnisher's] counsel and has only been on the bench approximately five years. It appears that bias still exists and the Trial Judge intentionally favored his former partner despite all the facts and evidence to the contrary." Mr. Jackson did not have a reasonable factual basis for his statements about the judge.

Mr. Jackson's conduct violated RPC 8.2(a), prohibiting lawyers from making statements that the lawyer knows to be false, or with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity, concerning the qualifications, integrity, or record of a judge.

Anthony L. Butler represented the Bar Association. Mr. Jackson represented himself. William H. Nielsen was the hearing officer.

Back to table of contents >>