November 2000

Disciplinary Notices

Richard Alan Jackson (WSBA No. 5675, admitted 1974), of Renton, has been disbarred by order of the Supreme Court effective June 1, 2000, following a default hearing. The discipline is based upon his abandoning his practice without notice to his clients and converting client funds from his trust account for his personal use.

Prior to November 1997, Mr. Jackson was an active sole practitioner in Renton, Washington. In late November 1997, he abandoned his practice without notice to his clients and removed all but $2.37 from his trust account. Mr. Jackson has not repaid or accounted for any of the clients' monies removed from his trust account.

Matter 1: At the time he abandoned his practice, Mr. Jackson represented the husband in a dissolution matter. The client gave Mr. Jackson a $6,000 cashier's check to be delivered to opposing counsel under the terms of the parties' settlement. Mr. Jackson originally told his client that the delay in delivering the funds to opposing counsel was due to a banking error. When his legal assistant asked him about the client's funds, Mr. Jackson told her that he had taken the money to pay his own back child support.

Matter 2: Mr. Jackson represented a client in a house purchase transaction. The client's father gave Mr. Jackson $3,000 as earnest money for the transaction. When Mr. Jackson abandoned his practice, the transaction was still pending and the money was not in the trust account.

Matter 3: Mr. Jackson represented a client in a traffic offense. In November 1997, the client's account had a credit balance of $230. In November 1997, Mr. Jackson appeared in court for the client. Mr. Jackson did not bill the client for the November services and removed the client's money from the trust account.

Matter 4: Mr. Jackson represented a couple in a child residential placement matter. The client's case was set for trial in January 1998. Mr. Jackson did not notify the clients prior to abandoning his practice and did not make arrangements for another lawyer to represent them at trial. He removed the client's unearned $520.30 advance fee deposit from the trust account.

Matter 5: Mr. Jackson represented a client in a child residential placement matter. The client paid a $1,500 advance fee deposit. Mr. Jackson earned approximately $300, but removed the entire advance fee from the trust account.

Matter 6: Mr. Jackson assisted a client in clearing title to real property. The client paid a $1,500 advance fee deposit to eliminate two liens filed against the property. Mr. Jackson did eliminate one of the liens, but did little or no work on the second. He removed the entire advance fee from his trust account.

Matter 7: Mr. Jackson represented the wife in a dissolution action. The client received a $9,212.32 cashier's check as part of the settlement. Mr. Jackson suggested that the client allow him to hold her funds in his trust account to protect the funds from creditors. The client endorsed the check to Mr. Jackson and he deposited the funds into his trust account. Mr. Jackson disbursed approximately $2,750 to the client and kept $798.67 for his fee. At the time he abandoned his practice, Mr. Jackson removed the remaining funds from his trust account.

Matter 8: Mr. Jackson represented the executor of an estate. He failed to appear at a December 3, 1997 hearing. As a result, the client was removed as executor.

Mr. Jackson's conduct violated RCW 9A.56.030, theft in the first degree; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and RPC 1.15(d), requiring lawyers to take steps to protect a client's interests when withdrawing from representation.

Christine Gray represented the Bar Association. Mr. Jackson represented himself. The hearing officer was Geoffrey G. Revelle.

Steven Zhu (WSBA No. 23381, admitted 1993), of Seattle, has received two reprimands, based on a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on January 12, 2000. The discipline is based upon his failure to competently represent one client and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in another matter.

Matter 1: Mr. Zhu represented a Chinese citizen in an immigration matter. The client was in the United States under a student classification and wanted to obtain residency status, to look for full-time employment. Mr. Zhu advised his client that working full-time would not jeopardize his student status. Based on this advice, the client quit school and accepted a full-time job. Immigration law does not permit students to work full-time.

Mr. Zhu filed a petition with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for the client to be granted classification as a temporary worker in a specialty occupation. The INS notified Mr. Zhu that the petition was incomplete and that the required additional documentation must pre-date the petition. Although the INS suggested that Mr. Zhu file a new petition, he submitted the additional documentation without filing a new petition. The INS denied the petition.

Mr. Zhu's conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to possess the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation necessary to competently represent a client.

Matter 2: Mr. Zhu assisted a Chinese citizen in his proceeding to obtain permanent resident status in Canada. The client also retained a Canadian lawyer. Mr. Zhu prepared an employment certificate to be signed by the client's former employer in China. Mr. Zhu signed the employment certificate himself, based on the client's representation that the former employer had authorized his name to be signed on the certificate. Mr. Zhu did not indicate on the certificate that he had signed the employer's name. Although Mr. Zhu asked the client to request that the employer verify the signature directly with Mr. Zhu, this did not happen. Mr. Zhu submitted the certificate to the Canadian lawyer without telling him that it was not the employer's signature.

Mr. Zhu's conduct violated RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Randy Beitel represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Zhu.

Douglas O. Whitlock (WSBA No. 5432, admitted 1973), of Vancouver, has been ordered censured pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on May 15, 2000. This discipline is based on Mr. Whitlock's failure to properly identify and protect client funds in his firm's trust account, and failure to diligently represent and communicate with a client.

Mr. Whitlock represented a client in a personal injury claim. The client signed a contingent fee agreement directing Mr. Whitlock to pay any medical bills from her share of any settlement. In early 1991, the case settled and the insurance company sent a $20,000 check to Mr. Whitlock, which he deposited into his firm's pooled IOLTA account. Mr. Whitlock disbursed $7,500 to his client; paid a portion of his fee; and paid some, but not all, of the outstanding medical bills. Mr. Whitlock paid two of these outstanding medical bills in 1994 and 1995. One medical bill was not paid. In November 1994, the client requested a full accounting of the settlement funds. Mr. Whitlock did not respond to this request for several weeks and then could not provide a full accounting. Eventually, the client determined that after the initial disbursals, $1,502.33 of the settlement funds remained in the firm's IOLTA account for over two years.

The Bar Association conducted an audit of the firm's IOLTA account. The audit revealed that the firm had failed to maintain complete records of client funds, failed to deposit and/or maintain all client funds in an interest-bearing trust account, used funds of one client to advance costs and fees on behalf of another client, and failed to promptly remove earned fees and costs from the trust account. As a result of this audit the firm retained a new bookkeeping firm and sent the client and additional $1,502.33.

Mr. Whitlock's conduct violated RPC 1.14, requiring lawyers to preserve the identity of and maintain complete records of client funds in the lawyers possession; RPC 5.3, requiring lawyers to supervise nonlawyer assistants; RPC 1.4(a), requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters; and RPC 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients.

Kevin Bank represented the Bar Association. Mr. Whitlock represented himself.

Nondisciplinary
Actions

Jennings P. Felix (WSBA No. 136, admitted 1948), of Seattle, was ordered suspended from the practice of law pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings by Supreme Court order entered May 23, 2000.

Interim suspension is pursuant to RLD Title 3 and is not a disciplinary sanction.

Back to table of contents >>