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.
Resigned in Lieu of Disbarment
William Beresford (WSBA No. 388, admitted 1968), of Edmonds, resigned in lieu of disbarment, effective November 9, 2004. This resignation was based on his conduct in failing to keep a client adequately informed about the status of a matter, failing to comply with trust-accounting rules, intentionally misappropriating client funds, making false and misleading statements in connection with a disciplinary investigation, and testifying falsely in a disciplinary deposition. (Note: Mr. Beresford is to be distinguished from Robert O. Beresford, deceased, and Richard R. Beresford, of Edmonds.)
In 1995, Mr. Beresford represented a client seeking to obtain payment for work performed as a subcontractor. In 1996 Mr. Beresford obtained a stipulated judgment in the client's favor for $10,000 plus interest. The defendant did not pay the judgment in a timely fashion, and Mr. Beresford assisted the client in attempting to collect the judgment. Between 1996 and October 1999, the defendant made a number of payments on the judgment, which Mr. Beresford and/or his firm properly paid to the client.
In October 1999, the defendant gave Mr. Beresford two $5,000 checks made payable to Mr. Beresford. Mr. Beresford did not notify the client of the receipt of the funds. Mr. Beresford endorsed both checks, depositing some of the proceeds into his own personal bank account and taking the remainder in cash. Without the client's knowledge or authorization, Mr. Beresford intentionally misappropriated all the money for his own purposes. In December 2000, Mr. Beresford purchased and delivered to the client a $2,500 cashier's check payable to the client.
The client subsequently asked Mr. Beresford to represent him in collecting payment on another matter. The client came to believe that Mr. Beresford was not handling the matter diligently, and requested information about the case. Mr. Beresford did not respond to the requests. In 2002, the client repeatedly wrote to Mr. Beresford, stating that he had hired another lawyer in both matters and asking Mr. Beresford to provide him with both files and an accounting in the first matter. Mr. Beresford did not respond to these requests until he was contacted by the WSBA, at which time he turned over the files to the client. He did not, however, provide the client with an accounting.
In February 2003, the lawyer for the defendant in the first matter requested that Mr. Beresford provide a satisfaction of judgment for the defendant's payment of the judgment amount. Mr. Beresford responded that he no longer represented the client and that the defendant knew the judgment had not been fully paid. He later indicated that he did not want to take the time to do all the arithmetic to determine whether the judgment had been paid off.
In March 2003 and again in May 2003, the client requested an accounting. Mr. Beresford did not provide the requested accounting.
The client filed a grievance with the WSBA in August 2003. In his written responses to the grievance and to requests for information in connection with the investigation, as well as during an investigatory deposition, Mr. Beresford, in an effort to prevent discovery of his misappropriations, intentionally made false and/or misleading statements regarding his handling of the funds and the payment of funds to the client.
In connection with his resignation in lieu of disbarment, Mr. Beresford paid restitution to the former client.
Mr. Beresford's conduct violated RPC 1.4, requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions; RPC 1.14(a), requiring a lawyer to deposit funds belonging to a client into an identifiable interest-bearing trust account; RPC 1.14(b)(1), requiring a lawyer to promptly notify a client of the receipt of client funds; RPC 1.14(b)(4), requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by the client funds in the lawyer's possession that the client is entitled to receive; RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and ELC 5.3(e)(1), requiring a lawyer to promptly respond to any inquiry or request made under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct and to provide a full and complete response to inquiries and questions.
Jean K. McElroy represented the Bar Association. Leland G. Ripley represented Mr. Beresford.
Resigned in Lieu of Disbarment
Gregory S. Wilson (WSBA No. 12012, admitted 1981), of Tacoma, resigned in lieu of disbarment, effective October 12, 2004. This resignation was based on his conduct between 2002 and 2004 involving multiple acts of misconduct in immigration matters, failure to comply with duties on suspension, and practicing law while suspended. (Note: Mr. Wilson is to be distinguished from Gregory M. Wilson of Greenacres.)
Matter 1: In February 2002, Mr. Wilson was hired to assist a client in obtaining permanent resident status for the client's family members. Mr. Wilson accepted over $3,000 as an advance cost deposit for the purpose of paying a $1,000-per-person INS penalty, which allows an eligible visa applicant to remain in the United States while a visa application is pending. Mr. Wilson was aware, however, that the family members were ineligible and would not soon become eligible, yet he failed to deposit the sum into a trust account. Mr. Wilson did not respond to repeated client telephone calls, and he failed to take action in the matter until November 2002, at which time he submitted a petition to the INS with an insufficient filing fee, which resulted in the petition being returned. The client requested a refund of the advance cost deposit, but Mr. Wilson failed to do so until a disciplinary investigation was underway.
Matter 2: On March 21, 2003, a client hired Mr. Wilson after meeting with his paralegal and paying $500 for attorney fees. Mr. Wilson did not meet with the client and did not deposit the $500 into a trust account. Although on March 10, 2003, the Supreme Court had issued an order suspending Mr. Wilson from the practice of law for three months commencing April 1, 2003, the client was not informed of Mr. Wilson's imminent suspension, nor was the client informed of the suspension after it began. Mr. Wilson never met with the client, nor did he respond to the client's telephone calls. When the client visited Mr. Wilson's office, office staff advised the client that the matter would be continued and that the client did not need to appear for an April 9, 2003, pretrial hearing. Mr. Wilson did not, however, continue the matter, nor did he appear for the hearing. Owing to the client's failure to appear, a bench warrant was issued for the client's arrest. When the court clerk telephoned Mr. Wilson's office about the situation, a paralegal informed the clerk that another lawyer would be filing a notice of appearance in the matter. The clerk then informed the client that the other lawyer would be appearing for him. The client had never heard of the other lawyer and did not want the other lawyer to represent him. When the client called Mr. Wilson's office, Mr. Wilson did not return his call. The client resolved the case on his own. Despite the client's requests that he return the $500 advance fee deposit, Mr. Wilson did not do so.
Matter 3: Mr. Wilson was hired to represent a Korean national whose passport, containing a student visa, had been stolen. Because the client did not make the necessary arrangements for his replacement passport to contain a visa, he was denied reentry to the United States after traveling to Canada. In June 2002, Mr. Wilson was paid $5,000 to undertake the representation, and he traveled to the U.S.-Canadian border to meet with the client and the border patrol. Thereafter Mr. Wilson asked for and was paid an additional $5,000, which was designated as refundable if Mr. Wilson was not successful in securing the client's re-entry into the United States. Mr. Wilson failed to appear at three scheduled meetings with the client and immigration officials, and he failed to return the client's telephone calls. The client was subsequently required to return to Korea to obtain a new visa. Although Mr. Wilson told the client that he would meet with him during a planned trip to Korea and assist in obtaining a new student visa, Mr. Wilson did not meet with the client during Mr. Wilson's stay in Korea. The client obtained and prepared the necessary documents on his own, eventually obtained a student visa, and returned to the United States. Mr. Wilson refunded $3,000 of the client's money between October 2002 and July 2003, but did not refund the remainder, together with interest, until after the client filed a grievance with the Bar Association.
Matter 4: In 2002, a client hired Mr. Wilson to defend him in a lawsuit. Mr. Wilson and opposing counsel agreed to postpone a pending summary judgment motion until July 10, 2002, to give Mr. Wilson additional time to obtain needed declarations from the client and two witnesses. It was agreed that if the declarations raised sufficient factual issues, the motion would be stricken. At approximately 6:00 p.m. on July 9, 2002, Mr. Wilson's office faxed opposing counsel the client's signed declaration, along with a note indicating that Mr. Wilson would not be present for the motion hearing owing to another court appearance. The declaration was not filed or sent to the court, nor was a continuance sought. Because the declarations of the other witnesses had not been provided, opposing counsel proceeded with the motion. After considering the materials Mr. Wilson had faxed to opposing counsel, which opposing counsel provided to the judge during the hearing, the judge granted the motion and entered judgment against Mr. Wilson's client.
Matter 5: After agreeing to a $50,000 settlement of her son's personal injury claim with an insurance company, a client hired Mr. Wilson to assist in obtaining court approval of the settlement, as required by court rule. In September 2002, Mr. Wilson arranged for the client and her son to meet with another lawyer, whom Mr. Wilson intended to name as the settlement guardian ad litem (GAL). Respondent took no action in the matter between the September 2002 meeting and March 31, 2003. On that date, one day before Mr. Wilson was to be suspended from the practice of law, Mr. Wilson filed an action to have the other lawyer appointed as the settlement GAL and for approval of the settlement. Mr. Wilson remained counsel of record in the matter until February 2004, but he took no further action on the client's behalf.
Matter 6: A Korean citizen hired Mr. Wilson to assist her in completing her pending application for adjustment in status to resident alien. The immigration court had previously ordered the client removed without having issued proper notice. On December 18, 2002, Mr. Wilson filed a motion to reopen the proceedings. On January 3, 2003, the immigration court issued an order noting that Mr. Wilson's motion was not in compliance with immigration court procedures; it ordered Mr. Wilson to file certain forms by April 1, 2003, and set a hearing for July 3, 2003. Mr. Wilson did not notify the client or the immigration court of his imminent suspension from the practice of law, scheduled to commence on April 1, 2003. On the date his suspension took effect, Mr. Wilson filed additional noncompliant papers with the court. On April 8, 2003, the immigration court issued an order extending the deadline for 10 days; the order warned that failure to file the necessary papers would lead to entry of an order of abandonment and voluntary departure without further warning. Mr. Wilson did not respond to the order. On April 28, 2003, the immigration court granted voluntary departure until June 20, 2003, with an alternative order of removal. Mr. Wilson did not forward the order to the client. The client unsuccessfully attempted to contact Mr. Wilson about the July hearing; the client only learned of Mr. Wilson's suspension when a relative contacted the Bar Association for assistance in communicating with Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson subsequently filed an untimely appeal of the order, which was dismissed. He also filed an untimely motion for reconsideration, which was dismissed. The client was detained by immigration authorities in January 2004, but was released on humanitarian grounds to allow her to care for her ailing veteran husband after a congressman intervened on her behalf. The client subsequently hired new counsel, who successfully moved to reopen the proceeding based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
Matter 7: During the period of his three-month suspension, in three matters Mr. Wilson failed to notify clients of his suspension and he practiced law while suspended and/or allowed his legal assistants to take action on the client's behalf. In 19 cases in which Mr. Wilson was counsel of record, although no other lawyer substituted for his clients, Mr. Wilson failed to notify the court of his inability to act as required by the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct. In at least four matters in addition to Matter 2 (above), Mr. Wilson arranged for another lawyer to substitute for him during the period of his suspension without obtaining his client's consent.
Mr. Wilson's conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4(a), requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; RPC 1.4(b), requiring a lawyer to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions concerning the representation; RPC 1.5(a), requiring that a lawyer's fee be reasonable; RPC 1.7(b), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a third person, or the lawyer's own interests; RPC 1.14(a), requiring a lawyer to deposit all funds of a client into an interest-bearing trust account; RPC 1.14(b)(4), requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or deliver as requested by the client any funds or properties in the possession of the lawyer that the client is entitled to receive; RPC 1.15(a)(1), requiring a lawyer to terminate a representation if the representation will result in violation of the Rules for Professional Conduct or other law; RPC 5.3, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the conduct of nonlawyer assistants is compatible with the lawyer's ethical obligations; RPC 5.5(a), prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law; RPC 5.5(e), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in the practice of law while on inactive status or while suspended; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; RPC 8.4(j), prohibiting willful disobedience or violation of a court order; ELC 14.1(c), requiring a suspended lawyer to notify clients, tribunals, and adverse counsel of the lawyer's inability to act; and ELC 14.2, requiring a disbarred or suspended lawyer to discontinue the practice of law.
Anne I. Seidel represented the Bar Association. Brett A. Purtzer represented Mr. Wilson.
Suspended
Antony P. Deruiz (WSBA No. 24641, admitted 1995), of Edmonds, was ordered to serve two consecutive six-month suspensions, effective October 21, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following hearings in two matters. The matters were consolidated on appeal. This discipline was based on his conduct between 2000 and 2002 involving neglect of client cases, failure to communicate with clients, failure to refund unreasonable and unearned fees, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations. For additional information please see In re Discipline of Deruiz, 152 Wn.2d 558, 99 P.3d 881 (2004).
Matter 1: This matter comprises misconduct in two client matters, together with failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigations of both matters.
• In June 2001, Client A's mother paid Mr. Deruiz $1,500 to represent the client at a probation review hearing. After advising the client that a hearing date would be set soon, Mr. Deruiz did not further write or speak to the client, despite the client's efforts to contact him. The client telephoned the court and learned that a hearing date had not been set. Mr. Deruiz scheduled the hearing shortly thereafter. When the client's mother telephoned Mr. Deruiz to inquire about the hearing date, Mr. Deruiz was upset and threatened to terminate the representation because the client had contacted the court. After indicating the hearing was scheduled for July 9, Mr. Deruiz ended the call. He had no further contact with the client or the client's mother. On July 9, the court canceled the hearing because Mr. Deruiz had not appeared and had not arranged for the client to be transported from the correctional facility. Mr. Deruiz did not respond to the client's mother's inquiries about why he had failed to appear nor to her requests that he refund the $1,500. Mr. Deruiz did not withdraw as counsel of record. The client's mother eventually obtained a civil default judgment against Mr. Deruiz in the amount of $1,590.
• During the course of the WSBA disciplinary investigation of the Client A matter, Mr. Deruiz failed to submit a timely response to a request for a response, failed to appear for a deposition as required by subpoena, terminated a deposition in order to consult with counsel, and failed to appear for the rescheduled deposition.
• In November 2000, Client B hired Mr. Deruiz to appeal the Department of Licensing's revocation of his driver's license. Client B paid Mr. Deruiz $1,000 of the agreed $2,000 fee. Months passed without Mr. Deruiz providing the client with any information on the status of the case. During this period, the client's employment as a commercial truck driver was terminated because the client lacked information on the status of his license. The client repeatedly attempted to contact Mr. Deruiz, without success. Mr. Deruiz did not respond to the client's requests for information about the status of the appeal, for an accounting, and for a return of unearned fees.
• During the course of the disciplinary investigation of the Client B matter, Mr. Deruiz failed to respond to a request for information and declined to appear at a deposition as required by subpoena. The WSBA served him with a petition for interim suspension for failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation, together with an order to show cause, to which he did not respond. The Supreme Court granted the petition for an interim suspension, which remained in effect until Mr. Deruiz attended a deposition and provided the WSBA with the requested materials.
Matter 2: Client C hired Mr. Deruiz to represent him on a charge of driving under the influence in Grant County and another driving-under-the-influence case in Kittitas County. The client paid both fees in part, and it was agreed that the remainder of the two fee arrangements could be paid in installments of $100 per month. Mr. Deruiz failed to attend a January 22 hearing in Grant County, claiming he was unable to successfully travel over Snoqualmie Pass, although the client and the judge had both successfully navigated the pass to attend the hearing. The court continued the hearing to February 19. On February 16, Mr. Deruiz appeared in court with the client in Kittitas County. Because the client was behind on his February payment, Mr. Deruiz warned him that a failure to pay would result in Mr. Deruiz's withdrawal. The client assured him that a check was in the mail.
On February 19, Mr. Deruiz failed to appear for the Grant County hearing; he did not contact the court, the prosecutor, or the client regarding his failure to appear. Subsequently, he received notice from the prosecuting attorney and the court that the hearing was rescheduled to February 25, but Mr. Deruiz failed to appear on that date or to contact the parties or the court. The court again rescheduled the hearing for March 12 and notified Mr. Deruiz of its understanding that he was counsel in the matter. Mr. Deruiz again failed to appear. Although Mr. Deruiz had not formally withdrawn from the matter, the court assigned Client C a public defender. Despite numerous attempts, the client was unable to contact Mr. Deruiz about the situation.
During the disciplinary investigation of the Client C matter, Mr. Deruiz proffered a number of reasons for his failures to appear, which explanations were inconsistent with his later testimony at the disciplinary hearing. Mr. Deruiz's explanations for his failures to appear were found to be not credible.
Mr. Deruiz's conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; RPC 1.4, requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions; RPC 1.5(a), requiring that a lawyer's fee be reasonable; RPC 1.5(b), requiring that upon client request a lawyer shall communicate in writing the basis or rate of a fee; RPC 1.15(d), requiring that a lawyer take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests upon termination of representation, including refunding any advance fee payment that has not been earned; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and former RLD 2.8(a), requiring a lawyer to promptly furnish a full and complete response to any inquiry or request made in connection with a grievance or disciplinary investigation.
Kevin M. Bank, Tracy B. Calabrese, Marsha A. Matsumoto, and Rebecca A. Neal represented the Bar Association. Mr. Deruiz represented himself. Robert C. Bibb and Moses F. Garcia were the hearing officers.
Suspended
Simon Stocker (WSBA No. 28748, admitted 1999), of Brush Prairie, was suspended for six months, effective June 28, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a stipulation. The September 10, 2004 order was retroactive to the date Mr. Stocker was suspended on an interim basis under ELC 7.1. This discipline was based on his commission of two assaults.
In 2004, Mr. Stocker engaged in a verbal altercation with two men outside of a nightclub in Seattle. Mr. Stocker punched both men, causing each of them to fall to the ground. According to witnesses, Mr. Stocker then struck one of the men again while the man was lying on the ground. Mr. Stocker's actions resulted in physical injuries to both men. As Mr. Stocker attempted to leave the scene, he was stopped by two police officers. According to the officers, Mr. Stocker appeared highly intoxicated, and he attempted to use his position as a city attorney to dissuade the officers from arresting him.
Mr. Stocker was charged with and pleaded guilty to the felony crime of assault in the third degree and the misdemeanor crime of assault in the fourth degree.
Mr. Stocker's conduct violated RPC 8.4(i), which prohibits a lawyer from committing any act of unjustified assault, whether committed in the course of his or her conduct as a lawyer or otherwise, and whether or not the act constitutes a felony or a misdemeanor.
Leslie Ching Allen represented the Bar Association. Mr. Stocker represented himself.
Correction
The January 2005 Nondisciplinary Notices incorrectly indicated that Kevin M. Kopra (WSBA No. 29651) had been suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings. The notice should have stated that Mr. Kopra was suspended pending the conclusion of supplemental proceedings pursuant to ELC 7.3.
Table of contents >>
