August 1999

Disciplinary Notices

These notices of imposition of disciplinary sanctions and actions are published pursuant to Rule 11.2(c)(4) of the Supreme Court's Rules for Lawyer Discipline, and pursuant to the February 18, 1995 policy statement of the WSBA Board of Governors.

Pursuant to Rule for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct 3.6(b), file materials relating to a matter concluded with an admonition may be destroyed five years after the admonition was issued. In admonition matters, it is the WSBA’s policy to remove the disciplinary notice from the Washington State Bar News website archive five years after the admonition was issued, regardless of whether the WSBA’s file materials are destroyed.

For a complete copy of any disciplinary decision, call the Washington State Disciplinary Board at 206-733-5926, leaving the case name and your address, or electronically submit your requests at http://pro.wsba.org/forms/publicrequest.asp. A list of recent disciplinary notices is available on the WSBA Website.

Suspended

Roderic Carucci (WSBA No. 24778, admitted 1995), of Reno, Nevada, was suspended for three months pursuant to Supreme Court Order dated June 18, 1999. The suspension is based on a three-month suspension order of the Nevada Supreme Court.

In 1994, Mr. Carucci submitted false documentation to a consumer lender to obtain approval to purchase a boat. He submitted false income tax returns, which were not actually filed with the IRS, and false personal income statements. In his marriage dissolution action deposition, Mr. Carucci admitted submitting the false loan documentation. He also admitted these actions in his disciplinary case deposition. However, when he learned that the lender had destroyed all of the supporting loan documentation, Mr. Carucci attempted to recant his admissions and change his testimony. The Nevada Formal Hearing Panel found this new testimony "not credible" and entered a finding that "Respondent has attempted to deceive this panel while under oath by not telling the truth while under examination before this panel."

Mr. Carucci's conduct violated Nevada SCR 203(3), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

Disciplinary Counsel Douglas Ende represented the Bar Association. Mr. Carucci represented himself.

Gary Libey (WSBA No. 6861, admitted 1976), of Colfax, has been ordered admonished by an order of a review committee of the Disciplinary Board. The admonition is based on his representing a husband in a dissolution, after representing both parties during the marriage.

Mr. Libey represented a husband and wife in business and personal matters, including incorporating a farm, drafting wills, and drafting loan and mortgage documents. The wife was not always present during the transactions, but she read the documents and participated to the extent possible. When the wife filed for a dissolution of marriage, Mr. Libey appeared for the husband. Mr. Libey did not consult with the wife, his former client, prior to appearing for the husband. The wife's lawyer requested that Mr. Libey withdraw from the representation, but he refused. Later, the Spokane County Superior Court ordered Mr. Libey to withdraw from the case.

Mr. Libey's conduct in representing the husband in a dissolution after representing both husband and wife in business and personal matters involving their property, violated RPC 1.9(a), prohibiting representing another person in a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the former client.

Timothy Leachman represented the Bar Association. Mr. Libey represented himself.

Stephan Downing (WSBA No. 12314, admitted 1984), of Tacoma, has been ordered admonished by an order of a review committee of the Disciplinary Board.

In 1991, Mr. Downing met with a husband and wife regarding a dissolution. Mr. Downing filed a Petition for Dissolution, signing as "attorney for Petitioner." The Court entered a Decree of Dissolution and Property Settlement Agreement in that case. In 1994, the husband contacted Mr. Downing with questions about the Property Settlement Agreement. Mr. Downing wrote the husband a letter answering his questions. He also sent a copy of this letter to the wife. Mr. Downing billed the husband for the time spent interpreting the Property Settlement Agreement and for pattern forms the husband had requested. Later, when the husband filed a Petition for Child Support Modification, Mr. Downing appeared for the wife.

By representing both the husband and wife in a dissolution action without obtaining a written waiver of conflict, Mr. Downing's conduct violated RPC 1.7, stating that a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation will be directly adverse to another client, unless (1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client, and (2) each client consents in writing after consultation and a full disclosure of the material facts. By representing the husband in the dissolution and providing him advice interpreting the Property Settlement Agreement and billing the husband, and then appearing for the wife in the Petition to Modify Child Support, Mr. Downing's conduct violated RPC 1.9, stating that a lawyer shall not represent 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 full disclosure of the material facts. By forwarding a copy of his letter answering the husband's questions to the wife, Mr. Downing's conduct violated RPC 1.6, stating that a lawyer shall not reveal secrets or confidences relating to representation, unless the client consents.

Jeffrey Julius represented the Bar Association. Mr. Downing represented himself.

Back to table of contents >>