August 2000

Disciplinary Notices

Grant L. Anderson (WSBA No. 4016, admitted 1963), of Pierce County, has been suspended for two years, following a stipulation, by order of the Supreme Court dated May 4, 2000. The discipline is based upon his violation of Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

On January 8, 1993, Mr. Anderson was sworn in as a judge in Pierce County Superior Court. In March 1996, the Bar Association commenced an investigation related to Mr. Anderson's actions as personal representative for the estate of Charles Hoffman. Following an investigation, disciplinary counsel dismissed the matter on the grounds that insufficient evidence existed to establish a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. On August 4, 1997, the Commission on Judicial Conduct filed a Statement of Charges against Mr. Anderson. On April 3, 1998, the Commission on Judicial Conduct filed its decision, dismissing four counts and finding violations of CJC Canons 1, 2(A), 5(C)(3) and 6(C) by his continuing to serve as president of the estate's corporations through October 1993, after he had been sworn in as a superior court judge; failing to disclose to the trustee of the trust formed after the estate closed, that he was receiving compensation in the form of car payments from the purchaser of an estate asset, while the price for the asset was being negotiated; and failing to report his receipt of the car payments on his public disclosure filings for 1993, 1994 and 1995.

The Commission recommended that that Mr. Anderson receive a censure and a four-month suspension, attend a course in judicial ethics, and amend his public disclosure filings. On May 12, 1999, in light of the Commission's decision, the Bar Association reopened its investigation. On July 29, 1999, the Supreme Court upheld the Commission's decision and increased the sanction to removal from office. By violating Canons 1, 2(A), 5(C)(3) and 6(C) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Mr. Anderson is subject to discipline pursuant to RLD 1.1(k).

Disciplinary Counsel Douglas Ende represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Anderson.

Martha G. Schaeffer (WSBA No. 17299, admitted 1987), of Silverdale, has been suspended for 90 days, following a stipulation, by order of the Supreme Court dated January 12, 2000. The discipline is based upon her failure to diligently represent two clients and failure to properly preserve client funds.

Matter 1: In May 1993, Ms. Schaeffer agreed to represent two clients in a wrongful termination suit against their employer. Between September 1994 and April 1995, she filed the complaint, sent interrogatories, conducted legal research, and took two depositions. Ms. Schaeffer took no further actions on the clients' cases. In June 1996, the court clerk mailed Ms. Schaeffer a Notice to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution. Ms. Schaeffer requested a 30-day delay, but took no other action. In September 1996, the Court dismissed the clients' case. When the clients contacted Ms. Schaeffer in October 1996, she did not tell them about the dismissal. The clients later learned from the court that their case had been dismissed. Ms. Schaeffer's conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to diligently represent a client; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to expedite clients' litigation; and RPC 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters.

Matter 2: In February 1993, Ms. Schaeffer agreed to represent the husband in a dissolution action. The client was partially disabled and unable to speak. In January 1994, the parties put an oral settlement agreement on the court record. In August 1994, the client granted his son a Durable Power of Attorney, giving the son general authority to handle the father's financial affairs. At the same time, the client granted Ms. Schaeffer a limited power of attorney to access some of the client's accounts to pay the community bills. Ms. Schaeffer paid the community bills with a signature stamp. In September 1994, the court entered the final dissolution decree, which stated that the personal property should be divided equally. The parties could not agree on the division, so the court appointed a special master. Although the client requested a new lawyer on October 31, 1994, Ms. Schaeffer continued to represent the client until early 1996, but did not complete the property distribution. In November 1994, Ms. Schaeffer received notice that the Social Security Administration would not continue to pay the client's benefits unless it received additional information. Ms. Schaeffer did not send the additional information, and the client's benefits were suspended. Additionally, during this time Ms. Schaeffer did not pay all of the community bills. She did not provide the necessary documentation to the son for the client's tax returns. She sent the client three bills between February 1993 and November 1995. She paid herself $12,251.35, using the client's signature stamp in December 1994, January 1995 and February 1995. The son stated that he did not authorize these payments, and Ms. Schaeffer had no contact with the client at this time. Ms. Schaeffer did not maintain complete records of the client's funds and was not able to provide an accounting. She used funds on behalf of one client to advance costs on behalf of another. Although the client obtained new counsel in early 1996, Ms. Schaeffer did not return the signature stamp and other property until August 1998.

Disciplinary Counsel Kevin Bank represented the Bar Association. Ms. Schaeffer represented herself.

Charles L. Smith (WSBA No. 5357, admitted 1973), of Seattle, has been suspended for six months, following a stipulation adopted by the disciplinary board on January 12, 2000 and approved by order of the Supreme Court dated April 13, 2000. The discipline is based upon his pattern of failing to return client phone calls, failure to diligently represent a client, and filing a frivolous bankruptcy petition.

Matter 1: In March 1996, Mr. Smith began working as an associate lawyer at Brouner & Associates. In mid-March 1996, Mr. Smith represented a dissolution client. During the summer of 1996, the client attempted to reach Mr. Smith by telephone several times, but Mr. Smith did not return her calls. In November 1996, following a one-day trial, Mr. Smith received the draft final pleadings from opposing counsel. Mr. Smith did not notify his client of those draft pleadings or the hearing date. Mr. Smith did not appear at the hearing when the judge signed the final pleadings. Mr. Smith then withdrew from the case. His withdrawal was effective the day he received the signed, conformed final pleadings from opposing counsel. Mr. Smith did not send his client a copy of the final pleadings.

Matter 2: In July 1996, Mr. Smith represented a client in a residential placement matter. In February 1997, during a lengthy settlement meeting, the parties reached agreement. The client was present during the meeting and conferred with Mr. Smith. As Mr. Smith left the courthouse, the client realized he had misunderstood the agreement, but did not have an opportunity to discuss it with Mr. Smith. During the subsequent weeks, the client tried to reach Mr. Smith by telephone. Mr. Smith did not return his calls. The client terminated Mr. Smith's representation.

Matter 3: In January 1997, Mr. Smith represented a client in a residential placement matter. In February 1997, the court approved the parties' agreement to a 30-day protective order and a temporary residential placement order. The client was present in court when the orders were entered, but mistakenly believed that the residential placement expired after 30 days. She attempted to contact Mr. Smith by telephone, but he did not return her calls. A legal assistant did talk to the client, but the client still did not understand the order. By the end of March 1997, communication between Mr. Smith and his client broke down due to her failure to follow the terms of the earlier order. On April 1, 1997, opposing counsel faxed to Mr. Smith a motion for emergency relief , which was scheduled to be heard the next day. Mr. Smith did not discuss the motion or the hearing date with his client; however, a legal assistant told the client not to attend the hearing. Mr. Smith attended the hearing on April 2. He prepared a notice of withdrawal on April 1, 1997, which opposing counsel received on April 3, 1997. Although a legal assistant mailed a copy of the notice to the client, she did not receive it.

Matter 4: Mr. Smith represented the father in a dissolution and residential placement matter. Prior to a February hearing date, the client told Mr. Smith that he had contemporaneous journals and statements regarding the children's care that might be helpful regarding the residential placement issues. Mr. Smith told the client that he was not interested in these materials. During March 1997, the client attempted to reach Mr. Smith by telephone, and Mr. Smith did not return his calls.

Matter 5: In February 1997, Mr. Smith represented a dissolution client. A temporary residential placement hearing was held in March 1997. In March and April 1997, the client attempted to reach Mr. Smith by telephone, but Mr. Smith did not return his calls.

Matter 6: In October 1997, Mr. Smith represented a client in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. Between January and May 1998, the client attempted to contact Mr. Smith by telephone, but Mr. Smith did not return his calls.

Matter 7: On December 24, 1997, Mr. Smith filed a bankruptcy petition on behalf of Brouner & Associates PSC, a Washington corporation. At the time he filed the petition, Mr. Smith was aware that as a corporation, Brouner & Associates was not entitled to Chapter 13 relief. The schedules and statements filed with the bankruptcy petition failed to list all income, assets and liabilities. Mr. Smith knew the schedules and statements were inaccurate and intended to later file amended schedules. On April 3, 1998, United States Bankruptcy Judge Thomas T. Glover enjoined Mr. Smith from filing bankruptcy cases in the United States Bankruptcy Courts for the Western District of Washington for 90 days. The court also imposed monetary sanctions on Mr. Smith and another lawyer.

Matter 8: In January 1998, Mr. Smith represented a client in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. Mr. Smith filed the client's petition in March 1998. In May 1998, the bankruptcy trustee notified Mr. Smith and the client that the plan would not be approved unless it was amended to reflect higher income and creditor payments. Between May and August 1998, Mr. Smith's office received copies of several notices from the bankruptcy court reiterating the requirements of the amended plan. During the summer of 1998, the client attempted to reach Mr. Smith by telephone, but Mr. Smith did not return his calls. A legal assistant did contact the client during this time. In August 1998, a legal assistant sent an amended plan to the bankruptcy court. The amended plan did not conform to the requirements set by the court, and was not signed by the client. Mr. Smith did not review the amended plan with the client or send the client a copy of the amended plan. The amended plan mistakenly understated the client's income.

Mr. Smith's conduct violated RPC 1.4, by engaging in a pattern of failing to return client phone calls and communicate adequately with a number of clients; RPC 1.3, by failing to prepare an accurate amended bankruptcy plan for one client, and failing to send draft final pleadings and notice of the hearing date to another client; and RPC 3.1, by filing the frivolous bankruptcy petition and inaccurate schedules on behalf of Brouner & Associates PSC.

Christine Gray represented the Bar Association. Charles L. Smith represented himself.

Back to table of contents >>