April 2001

Disciplinary Notices

Sherrie Bennett (WSBA No. 12159, admitted 1981), of Seattle, was suspended for 60 days following a stipulation approved by order of the Supreme Court dated June 13, 2000. The discipline is based upon her practicing law while her license to practice was suspended in 1995. The suspension became effective June 19, 2000. Ms. Bennett has since been reinstated.

On June 2, 1995, the Supreme Court ordered Ms. Bennett's license to practice suspended for failure to pay WSBA dues. Ms. Bennett indicated that she did not receive the notice mailed to her by the court. On July 6, 1995, Ms. Bennett received a letter from disciplinary counsel advising her of her duties on the suspension of her license.

Ms. Bennett represented a dissolution client, including signing pleadings, between June 2 and July 6, 1995. After July 6, Ms. Bennett communicated with her client and the opposing counsel's office regarding the pending dissolution. On July 21, 1995, Ms. Bennett delivered her dues payment to the WSBA office. She wrongly believed that delivering the payment would result in automatic reinstatement. She appeared in court representing her dissolution client on this same day.

During the time she was suspended, Ms. Bennett was employed as a program director and staff attorney for Student Legal Services at the University of Washington. One of her duties was to assist Rule 9 interns in providing legal assistance to clients. During Ms. Bennett's suspension, at least two interns worked in the office and served clients.

Ms. Bennett did not notify her dissolution client or the University of Washington of her suspension. Ms. Bennett's license to practice law was reinstated on August 4, 2000. The stipulated sanction in this case included several mitigating factors.

By continuing to practice law after receiving notice that her license to practice had been suspended, Ms. Bennett's conduct violated RPC 5.5.

Joy McLean represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Ms. Bennett.

Grant Kinnear (WSBA No. 8935, admitted 1979), of Seattle, was suspended for 60 days following a stipulation approved by order of the Supreme Court dated June 13, 2000. The discipline is based upon his practicing law while his license was suspended, failing to diligently represent a client, and misrepresentation. The suspension became effective June 23, 2000. Mr. Kinnear has since been reinstated.

On March 10, 1998, the Supreme Court suspended Mr. Kinnear's license to practice law for failure to comply with continuing legal education reporting requirements. Mr. Kinnear received notice of this suspension on March 11, 1998. After receiving this notice, Mr. Kinnear continued to practice law in two matters.

In April 1998, he represented a client in a mediation. He did not inform the mediator that his license to practice had been suspended. The opposing counsel asked Mr. Kinnear before the mediation if he was an active member of the WSBA. Mr. Kinnear untruthfully said that he was an active member. Following the mediation, Mr. Kinnear withdrew from the representation and arranged for another lawyer to represent the client.

In the second case, Mr. Kinnear attended the closing of a refinance of a commercial building on behalf of a client who knew that Mr. Kinnear's license had been suspended.

On July 15, 1998, a WSBA employee called Mr. Kinnear's law office. The person answering the phone said, "law office," and indicated that Mr. Kinnear was practicing law in that office. Mr. Kinnear was a tenant in an office-sharing arrangement with several other lawyers. The receptionist did not know about his license suspension. Although Mr. Kinnear did not remove his name from the building directory during his suspension, he did not take new clients or bill existing clients for work done during this time. Mr. Kinnear's license to practice law was reinstated on February 24,1999.

From fall 1993 until fall 1997, Mr. Kinnear represented the West Shore Tenants Association (WSTA). After a lengthy administrative appeals process and several attempts at mediation, WSTA asked Mr. Kinnear to file a federal court lawsuit on behalf of some tenants. In December 1997, after some delay, Mr. Kinnear told several WSTA members that the complaint had been filed when in fact it had not. Although there was no statute of limitations on this lawsuit, the issues involved were financially important to WSTA members and the resolution was delayed. The sanction analysis in this matter involved mitigating factors.

By continuing to practice law after receiving notice that his license to practice had been suspended, Mr. Kinnear's conduct violated RPCs 5.5(a), 1.15(a)(1) and 8.2. By falsely telling WSTA members that the complaint had been filed, Mr. Kinnear's conduct violated RPCs 1.3, 1.4(a) and 8.4(c).

Anne I. Seidel represented the Bar Association. Wesley N. Edmunds represented Mr. Kinnear.

Marc L. Meigs (WSBA No. 19992, admitted 1990), of Portland, Oregon, was suspended for 60 days following a stipulation to discipline in Oregon. The Washington Supreme Court approved the RLD 12.6 reciprocal discipline by order dated June 30, 2000. The discipline is based upon his delay in paying funds to an insurance company, and making an unwarranted argument regarding his client's entitlement to the funds.

Mr. Meigs represented a client injured in an automobile accident. He negotiated a settlement with the other driver's insurance company. The settlement included a $9,600.23 payment to the client's insurance company to reimburse PIP (personal injury protection) payments already made to her. The PIP reimbursement check stated on its face, "full and final settlement of PIP lien." An accompanying letter also indicated that the check would satisfy the PIP lien. The check was made out to the client and her insurance company.

On June 19, 1996, Mr. Meigs deposited the check into his trust account without obtaining the insurance company's endorsement or notifying it of the check. Mr. Meigs advised the client's insurance company that he would settle his client's unfiled claim against the driver of the car in which she had been a passenger if they would waive the PIP reimbursement. The insurance company rejected the settlement offer and demanded full PIP reimbursement, which Mr. Meigs refused to pay. The insurance company made two additional demands for the PIP reimbursement and the accrued interest. Mr. Meigs did not pay the PIP reimbursement until July 10, 1997. Neither the client nor Mr. Meigs had any claim to the PIP reimbursement funds.

By depositing the check and retaining the proceeds without any claim of right, Mr. Meigs' conduct violated Oregon DR 1-102 (A)(3), prohibiting misrepresentation; and Oregon DR 7-102(A)(2), prohibiting knowingly advancing an unwarranted claim.

Douglas Ende represented the Bar Association. Mr. Meigs represented himself.

H. Gary Wallis (WSBA No. 6311, admitted 1975), of Tacoma, has received a reprimand pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on May 15, 2000. The discipline is based upon his failure to make reasonable efforts to ensure his firm correctly administered its trust account.

Mr. Wallis worked for attorney Marvin Olsen from the time he was admitted to practice. In approximately 1977, Mr. Wallis and Mr. Olsen formed a partnership in which Mr. Wallis remained until 1998. During that time, Mr. Olsen was the managing partner, and had control and responsibility for the client trust account. In 1993, the Bar Association audit manager determined, after a preliminary audit, that the firm's trust account contained $14,000-$20,000 less than the known client balances. Although Mr. Wallis did not believe that he had caused the shortage, he deposited $8,000 to cure it. Mr. Wallis believed Mr. Olsen would cure the remaining shortage, but he did not.

In January 1994, after a full audit, Mr. Olsen and Mr. Wallis were told that they needed to deposit $6,989.96 to cure a remaining trust account shortage. The auditor also found that the firm failed to keep complete client records, failed to keep all client funds in the trust account, used client trust funds for business with other clients, and that Mr. Olsen used client trust funds for his own business transactions. No funds were deposited into the trust account to cure the shortage.

Although Mr. Wallis believed Mr. Olsen would deposit the required funds, Mr. Wallis did not verify that the firm's trust account was in compliance with the Rules for Professional Conduct. In December 1997, the auditor reported findings from a subsequent audit. The auditor found that the four problems listed above were continuing.

By failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the firm properly managed the client trust account and failing to take steps to mitigate Mr. Olsen's misconduct, Mr. Wallis's conduct violated RPCs 1.5, 1.14, 5.1 and 5.3.

Joy McLean represented the Bar Association. Mr. Wallis represented himself.

John G. Ziegler (WSBA No. 5875, admitted 1974), of Waitsburg, has been censured pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on May 15, 2000. This discipline is based on his failing to diligently represent and adequately inform a client about the status of his case.

Mr. Ziegler represented the father in a dissolution action and post-dissolution modifications.

On May 3, 1996, the mother filed a petition to modify the parenting plan. The hearing was scheduled for May 13, 1996. Mr. Ziegler requested that opposing counsel continue the hearing twice because he was having difficulty obtaining financial information from his client. The hearing was continued to May 28, and then to July 8, 1996. Mr. Ziegler did not appear for the July 8 hearing. On the same day, opposing counsel served Mr. Ziegler with a motion for an order of default. Mr. Ziegler did not respond to the motion or appear at the hearing, so the court entered an order of default.

The court increased the father's child-support payment based on an imputed income, and entered a judgment against him for back child support. Mr. Ziegler did not file a motion to vacate the default or to reconsider the orders, nor did he send copies of any of the motions or orders to the father. Mr. Ziegler states, however, that the father knew about the hearings and knew that Mr. Ziegler was waiting to receive financial information.

In May 1998, the father retained new counsel. In July 1998, the court set aside the default child-support orders and par\enting plan. The stipulated sanction in this case included several mitigating factors.

Mr. Ziegler's conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring lawyers to provide competent representation; and RPC 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients.

Jean McElroy represented the Bar Association. Mr. Ziegler represented himself.

Back to table of contents >>