For a complete copy of any disciplinary decision, call the Washington State Disciplinary Board at 206-727-8252, leaving the case name and your address.

Disbarred

Donovan R. Bigelow (WSBA No. 20455, admitted 1986), of Seattle, has been disbarred by order of the Supreme Court effective December 7, 1999, following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on September 17, 1999. The discipline is based upon his unlawful attempt to induce a witness in an official proceeding to fail to attend the hearing.

Mr. Bigelow represented the criminal defendant in a rape of a child in the third-degree charge. Mr. Bigelow spoke with the victim's mother by telephone on at least four occasions. During the first conversation, Mr. Bigelow told the mother that the prosecutor's case would not be successful without her son's testimony. He also told her that if the client did not go to jail, the client would be in a position to compensate the child for what the client did. He told the mother that the Prosecutor's Office would threaten to arrest the mother and son if they did not show up for court, but that nothing would really happen.

During the next phone call, Mr. Bigelow told the victim's mother they should meet in person to discuss her son's attendance at the Art Institute of Seattle. The mother stated that she met with Mr. Bigelow and they discussed the client paying for the victim's schooling and counseling, and what would happen if the victim and the mother did not testify against the client. Although the prosecutor had not notified Mr. Bigelow of the date of the defense interview with the victim, Mr. Bigelow appeared on time the next day. During this interview, the victim's mother told the prosecutor and Mr. Bigelow that she did not want to cooperate and that the lawyers should settle the case.

Mr. Bigelow left a phone message for the mother two days prior to the trial date, stating that he desperately needed to talk to her. At this point, the court authorized recording of any telephone conversations between the mother and Mr. Bigelow. When the mother returned the call, Mr. Bigelow referred to earlier conversations and his client's willingness to compensate the mother and her son. He also stated that if the mother and son testified as expected, the client would surely end up in prison and a civil suit would not be successful. Mr. Bigelow asked whether the witnesses would be appearing in court. When the mother said no, Mr. Bigelow told her he would let her know whether the prosecutor sought a warrant for their arrest. As a result of his actions, Mr. Bigelow pleaded guilty to Attempted Tampering with a Witness in violation of RCW 9A.72.120(1)(b), a gross misdemeanor. Mr. Bigelow's conduct violated RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; and RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Mr. Bigelow's conduct also violated RLD 1.1(c) by violating his Oath of Attorney to abide by the laws of the State of Washington.

Timothy Leachman and Joy McLean represented the Bar Association. Mr. Bigelow represented himself.

Disbarred

Gerald Bopp (WSBA No. 404, admitted 1970), of Issaquah, has been disbarred by order of the Supreme Court effective November 17, 1999, following a default hearing. The discipline is based upon his failure to diligently represent a client, practicing law while his license was suspended, and failure to cooperate with a Bar Association investigation.

Mr. Bopp represented a client in the Superior Court appeal of a small claims judgment. Mr. Bopp knew that statutes and court rules required his client to have the opposing party served with the Notice of Appeal, case schedule and other pleadings. Although Mr. Bopp told his client he would serve these documents, he did not. The court continued the hearing, specifically indicating in the order that the opposing party had not been served. Mr. Bopp again failed to serve the opposing party. The court granted Mr. Bopp's motion for an Order of Default, Dismissal and Order to Disburse Funds.

After learning of the appeal and order, the opposing party obtained an order reinstating the original judgment and assessing $1,250 in terms against Mr. Bopp's client for failure to serve the Notice of Appeal. Mr. Bopp did not attend this hearing, notify his clients of the hearing date, or send his clients copies of the pleadings or the court's order. Mr. Bopp did not respond to the Bar Association's requests for information in this case. Mr. Bopp's conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to exercise reasonable diligence in representing a client; RPC 3.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of the tribunal; and RLD 2.8(b), requiring lawyers to cooperate with Bar Association investigations.

In October 1996, the Supreme Court suspended Mr. Bopp's license for failure to comply with the Continuing Legal Education requirements. In May 1998, Mr. Bopp continued to advertise his legal practice in several phone directories. Mr. Bopp's staff answered his phone "law offices" and were unaware of his suspension. The staff stated that Mr. Bopp continued to work on real estate transactions during his suspension. Mr. Bopp failed to respond to the Bar Association's requests for response and deposition subpoena on this issue. Mr. Bopp's conduct violated RLD 1.1(b) and (l), prohibiting lawyers from practicing while their license is suspended, and RLD 2.8(b), requiring lawyers to cooperate in Bar Association investigations.

Jonathan Burke represented the Bar Association. Mr. Bopp represented himself. Philip VanDerhoef was the hearing officer.

Suspended

Thomas Brothers (WSBA No. 9653, admitted 1980), of Everett, has been suspended for three months pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on September 20, 1999 and by the Supreme Court on December 6, 1999. The discipline is based on his failure to properly handle client funds and trust accounts.

Matter 1: In 1992, Mr. Brothers represented a brother and sister, the only known heirs of their father's estate. The estate was worth more than $400,000, consisting of securities and other property in Washington and a partial interest in real estate in Switzerland. Additionally, the father may have had an illegitimate child in Switzerland. Mr. Brothers told the clients that estate costs usually end up around three percent of the estate assets, but could be higher if the matter was complicated. Mr. Brothers did not set a specific fee and did not explain the basis for his fee in writing.

In October 1992, Mr. Brothers established a Shearson Lehman Brothers account (Shearson account) to be funded by estate assets. The clients and Mr. Brothers were listed on the account as having check signatory authority. Mr. Brothers listed his office address as the account address and did not designate this as a trust account. During 1993, Mr. Brothers obtained $22,000 in fees by writing six separate checks against the Shearson account. The clients approved these fees by telephone.

In 1994, Mr. Brothers traveled to Switzerland for a week to resolve the partial real estate interest and attempt to locate the illegitimate child. The clients indicated they authorized the trip, so long as the fee for the entire case did not exceed $25,000.

In the fall of 1994, Mr. Brothers obtained $35,000 in fees by writing four checks on the Shearson account. He did not keep time records or provide any invoices to the clients. He also wrote a $1,704 check to pay for his personal credit card. In November 1994, the clients realized they had not been receiving monthly statements on the Shearson account and requested copies from Shearson. When the clients received copies of the account statements, they notified Mr. Brothers that they disputed his fees. The clients contacted the Bar Association in April 1995. In November 1995, at Disciplinary Counsel's suggestion, Mr. Brothers returned $25,000 to the Shearson account and reimbursed the $1,704.

From 1992 through 1994, Mr. Brothers made several disbursements from the Shearson account, including a $103,000 disbursement. He did not maintain records of these transactions. WSBA auditors traced these disbursements to other accounts in the clients' names.

Matter 2. Between July 1994 and January 1996, Mr. Brothers maintained some client funds in a business account instead of an IOLTA account. These funds accumulated $529.67 in interest that was not remitted to the Legal Foundation of Washington. Additionally, in 1996, Mr. Brothers' trust account contained an unidentified balance of $7,176. Mr. Brothers determined that $4,625 of this money belonged to a business venture separate from his law practice and the remaining $1,200 belonged to the estate clients. In 1999, Mr. Brothers reimbursed the estate. On seven occasions Mr. Brothers paid funds out of the client trust account in excess of the amount that the particular client had deposited. In all of these instances, sufficient funds were ultimately deposited.

The stipulation in this matter required that Mr. Brothers pay restitution. He paid $529.67 to the Legal Foundation of Washington as interest that should have accumulated in an IOLTA account, $1,200 in attorney's fees to the estate clients' current lawyer, and formally withdrew all claims to the $25,000 returned to the clients' Shearson account.

Mr. Brothers' conduct violated RPC 1.5(b), requiring that lawyers communicate to the client the basis or rate of the lawyers fee and the factors involved in determining the charges for legal services; and RPC 1.14, requiring that client funds be placed in a trust account, that the lawyer only remove funds to which he is entitled, and that the lawyer maintain complete records of all funds, properties and securities coming into the lawyer's possession.

Christine Gray represented the Bar Association. Mr. Brothers represented himself.

Suspended

John F. Warner (WSBA No.14571, admitted 1984), of Seattle, has been suspended for two years pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on September 17, 1999 and by the Supreme Court on December 7, 1999. The discipline is based on his entering a sexual relationship with a client, marrying that client while married to someone else, making false statements to conceal the prior marriage, and taking money that belonged to his firm without authorization.

Matter 1: In 1996, Mr. Warner represented a client suffering from severe depression in a social security overpayment matter. Mr. Warner entered into a personal and sexual relationship with the client, while continuing to represent her until he resigned from his firm in May 1998. During this relationship, Mr. Warner falsely told the client that he was divorced. He prepared a two-page fake "Decree of Dissolution," using falsified pleading paper and a fictitious King County Superior Court cause number. Mr. Warner applied for a marriage license, falsely stating he was divorced. In July 1997, he married his client while still married to his wife. Mr. Warner intentionally concealed the marriage to his client from his family and co-workers, and made false representations to his medical insurance company and the firm office manager that he was divorced. Mr. Warner was divorced in March 1998.

In May 1998, after learning that Mr. Warner had deceived her about his marital status, the client commenced an action to invalidate their marriage. Mr. Warner's conduct violated RPC 1.7(b), prohibiting representing a client if the lawyer's own interests will materially limit the lawyer's representation; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer (bigamy in violation of RCW 9A.64.010); and RLD 1.1(a) prohibiting committing an act of moral turpitude.

Matter 2: In 1998, Mr. Warner received $13, 715 in funds belonging to his firm. Mr. Warner instructed an inexperienced temporary secretary to deliver the checks to him, instead of to the firm's bookkeeper. Mr. Warner cashed the checks and retained the funds for his personal use. Mr. Warner stated that the funds were to replace bonuses that the firm had failed to pay him. The firm discovered the missing funds after Mr. Warner resigned. Mr. Warner paid back all of the funds. Mr. Warner's conduct violated RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. The sanction imposed in this case involved significant mitigating factors and probation conditions.

Douglas Ende represented the Bar Association. Leland Ripley represented Mr. Warner. Jan Eric Peterson was the hearing officer.

Back to table of contents >>