February 2005

Disciplinary Notices

Suspended

Richard A. Alcorn (WSBA No. 7973, admitted 1977), of Phoenix, AZ, was reciprocally suspended for three months, based on a March 18, 2004, order of the Supreme Court of Arizona suspending Mr. Alcorn retroactive to May 4, 2003. The Washington State Supreme Court's order of reciprocal discipline, entered September 30, 2004, imposed the suspension in Washington retroactive to May 4, 2003, in accordance with the dates in the Arizona order. This discipline was based on Mr. Alcorn's borrowing money from clients in 1995 without making necessary disclosures or obtaining the clients' consent to the transaction in writing.

In 1993, Mr. Alcorn commenced representing two clients in a dispute arising out of formation of an L.L.C. In 1995, during the representation, the clients loaned Mr. Alcorn $3,000 at Mr. Alcorn's request. The terms of the loan transaction were not transmitted to the clients in writing and the clients did not consent to the loan terms in writing.

Mr. Alcorn's conduct violated ER 1.8(a) of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, prohibiting a lawyer from entering into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquiring an ownership, possessory, security, or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless the transaction is fair and reasonable, and the terms are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client; the client is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel; and the client consents in writing.

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

Suspended

Mark J. Dynan (WSBA No. 12161, admitted 1981), of Tacoma, was suspended for six months, effective October 10, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct between 1997 and 1999 involving alteration of bills and submission of false declarations in connection with motions for attorney fees. For additional information please see In re Discipline of Dynan, 152 Wn.2d 601, 98 P.3d 444 (2004).

Mr. Dynan was hired by an insurance company in three matters to represent people insured by the company. By motion, Mr. Dynan requested attorney fees in each matter as authorized by statute and the Mandatory Arbitration Rules. The motions were supported by declarations of Mr. Dynan with attached billings. The declarations stated that the attached billings were "true and correct billings for my time and services expended on this matter." However, the attached bills were not the actual bills sent to the insurance company. Believing that he was entitled by statute to claim a reasonable fee rather than his actual fee, Mr. Dynan had directed his office staff to white out the actual hourly rate of $100-$120 and replace it with a rate of $150 before submitting the papers to the court. Mr. Dynan did not notify the court or opposing counsel of these alterations.

Mr. Dynan's conduct violated RPCs 3.3(a)(1), prohibiting a lawyer from making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; 3.3(a)(4), prohibiting a lawyer from offering evidence the lawyer knows to be false; 3.4(b), prohibiting a lawyer from falsifying evidence, counseling or assisting a witness to testify falsely, or offering an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law; 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Douglas M. Fryer represented the Bar Association. Edward S. Winskill represented Mr. Dynan. Gayle T. McElroy was the hearing officer.

Reprimanded

Anthony Z. Szabo (WSBA No. 23210, admitted 1993), of Kent, was ordered to receive a reprimand, effective October 15, 2004, following a stipulation. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2002, involving the failure to deposit client funds in a trust account and failure to keep complete records of client funds.

In 2002, a client consulted with Mr. Szabo about a potential medical malpractice claim. Mr. Szabo agreed to evaluate the case. After receiving the medical reports, Mr. Szabo advised the client that before he would agree to handle the case, he would need her to advance $450 in costs for the hiring of a medical expert to review the reports. In August 2002, Mr. Szabo charged the sum to the client's credit card and directed the funds to his general banking account. Believing that the funds would be immediately paid to the medical expert, Mr. Szabo did not transfer the funds into a trust account. It eventuated that there were delays in obtaining the expert's services, but Mr. Szabo did not transfer the client's funds to his trust account.

A physician reviewed the medical reports in September 2002 and reported that he was not inclined to express an opinion in the matter. The physician did not charge for the consultation. In October 2002, Mr. Szabo advised the client that he was declining to handle her case, and refunded $450 to the client's credit-card account. During the period between August and October 2002, during which the client's funds were in Mr. Szabo's general account, Mr. Szabo did not maintain at least a $450 balance in the account in order to preserve the integrity of the client's funds.

Mr. Szabo's conduct violated RPCs 1.14(a), requiring a lawyer to deposit all funds of a client into an interest-bearing trust account; and 1.14(b)(3), requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records of all funds or other properties of a client coming into the possession of the lawyer.

Randy Beitel represented the Bar Association. Mr. Szabo represented himself. Scott M. Ellerby was the hearing officer.

Admonished

J.J. Sandlin (WSBA No. 7392, admitted 1977), of Zillah, was admonished following a stipulation approved by a hearing officer. The admonition was based on his conduct between 1989 and 2001, during which he allowed 10 years to elapse before taking action in a client's case and failed to withdraw from the representation when it became apparent that there was insufficient evidence to support the client's claims.

In 1989, Mr. Sandlin commenced representing a client who had previously settled an antitrust matter pursuant to a settlement order providing that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce its terms. The client sought to establish that other parties to the settlement had breached duties imposed by the settlement order. From the outset, it was recognized that additional evidence would be necessary to substantiate the client's allegations. Despite some initial efforts on the part of Mr. Sandlin and the client, there was little activity in the case. In 1997, the client filed a grievance against Mr. Sandlin owing to his inactivity. The grievance was closed in February 1999 at the joint request of the parties, conditional on Mr. Sandlin's completion of work on the case.

In late 2000, Mr. Sandlin filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing in the case. The judge initially issued a show cause order, but in May 2001, following receipt of the defendants' responses in opposition, the judge vacated the show cause order and ordered Mr. Sandlin's client to show cause why Rule 11 sanctions should not be imposed against him. Mr. Sandlin filed a reply to the order, but no further action was taken. Mr. Sandlin advised the client not to pursue his claims owing to the risk of imposition of substantial sanctions, but the client disagreed. Mr. Sandlin did not withdraw as counsel until July 2004, after the client had sent him a letter terminating the representation.

Mr. Sandlin's conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client, and 1.15(a)(1), requiring a lawyer to withdraw from representation of a client if the representation will result in violation of the RPC or other law.

Natalea Skvir represented the Bar Association. Mr. Sandlin represented himself. Sidney S. Royer was the hearing officer.

Admonished

Eugene C. Wong (WSBA No. 31957, admitted 2001), of San Francisco, CA, was admonished following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board. The admonition was based on his conduct in 2002 and 2003, involving the failure to diligently represent a client in an immigration matter. Mr. Wong is to be distinguished from Eugene W. Wong of Seattle.

In 1999, following receipt of a notice of intent to deny an asylum petition, a client hired Mr. Wong to represent him in the immigration matter. After a hearing in 2001, an immigration judge denied the client's application for asylum, and Mr. Wong commenced a timely appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). In 2002, the client married a naturalized U.S. citizen. In July 2002 the client and the spouse hired Mr. Wong to file an I-130 visa petition with the INS in order to obtain a reclassification of the client as the spouse of a U.S. citizen. Mr. Wong did not file the petition for over five months. In addition, because he was unaware of pertinent precedent, Mr. Wong failed to advise the client of the option to move for a remand of the pending appeal owing to the filing of the I-130 petition.

In April 2003, the BIA affirmed the denial of the client's asylum application. The client then hired Mr. Wong to commence an appeal of the BIA decision to the 9th Circuit. In July 2003, the client learned that Mr. Wong ought to have filed a motion to remand the BIA appeal to the immigration judge following the filing of the I-130 petition or a motion to reopen the matter within 90 days of the BIA decision. The client terminated Mr. Wong's representation and hired another lawyer, who successfully reopened the BIA proceeding and obtained a remand to the immigration judge. Mr. Wong refunded to the client the fees paid in connection with the unnecessary appeal to the 9th Circuit.

Mr. Wong's conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; and 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.

Kevin M. Bank represented the Bar Association. Mr. Wong represented himself.

Nondisciplinary Notices

Suspended Pending Outcome of Disciplinary Proceedings

Bernie W. Potter (WSBA No. 23076, admitted 1993), of Seattle, was suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to ELC 7.2(a)(3), effective November 18, 2004, by an order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary action.

Suspended Pending Outcome of Disciplinary Proceedings

Ann Whitlow-Clark (WSBA No. 14579, admitted 1984), of Dallas, TX, was suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to ELC 7.1, effective November 5, 2004, by an order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary action.

Back to table of contents >>