January 2001

Disciplinary Notices

Disbarred

Claere Shea (WSBA No. 24938, admitted 1995), of King County, has been disbarred by order of the Supreme Court effective February 29, 2000, following a default hearing. The discipline is based upon making false statements regarding proceedings instituted for revocation of her license to practice law, providing multiple social security numbers to employers and the Bar Association, falsely representing to an employer that she had professional liability coverage, and falsely denying that she had been previously admitted to the Bar Association under another name.

On June 15, 1987, Claere Shea applied for admission to the WSBA using the name Claire Axelrad Merrit. The real Claire Axelrad Merrit was admitted to practice in another state in 1978, and has never applied for admission to the WSBA. On October 27, 1987, Claere Shea was admitted to the WSBA under the name Claire Axelrad Merrit and given the WSBA No. 17244.

In March 1990, the WSBA received information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicating that they believed Ms. Shea's true identity may be Patricia A. O'Shea, who had an outstanding felony arrest warrant for larceny in Massachusetts. In May 1990, the WSBA granted Ms. Shea's request to change her name of record to Claire O'Shea. On November 17, 1990, the WSBA filed a motion with the Supreme Court to have Ms. Shea's credentials rescinded. The Court granted the motion.

On June 16, 1994, Ms. Shea submitted an application to take the bar examination and to be admitted to the WSBA. This application used the name Pat Shea, indicated that she had never practiced in Washington, and that proceedings had never been instituted against her for revocation of any license. Ms. Shea passed the winter 1995 bar exam, was admitted to the WSBA and assigned WSBA No. 24938. On February 11, 1997, Ms. Shea requested that her WSBA records be changed to reflect her name as Claere Shea.

Ms. Shea responded to a newspaper advertisement for a contract lawyer. She told her potential employer that she had professional liability insurance and provided the name of the company. After the employer was not able to verify the coverage, Ms Shea admitted that she did not have liability insurance.

During the investigation of this matter, Claere Shea appeared personally at the WSBA offices. Although her hair color had changed, WSBA staff members recognized her as the same person formerly known as Claire Axelrad Merrit or Claire O'Shea. Ms. Shea claimed that one of her sisters was the person who worked as the contract lawyer without liability insurance.

On February 19, 1998, Ms. Shea applied for a legal assistant position in the "D" law firm. Her résumé contained misleading and false information about her experience and education. The D law firm hired Ms. Shea on April 22, 1998. Prior to leaving the firm without notice on October 2,1998, Ms. Shea downloaded many computer files from the firm's local area network onto a disk and then deleted the files from the network. Subsequently, the firm was able to recover the files using a computer security service. They found that some of the pleadings included a signature block for Claere P. Shea, Attorney at Law, WSBA No. 24938.

Ms. Shea's conduct violated RPCs 8.1(a), prohibiting knowingly making a false statement of material fact in connection with a bar admission application; 8.1(b), knowingly failing to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension created in the bar application process or knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admission authority; RPC 8.4 (b), prohibiting committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; 8.4 (c), prohibiting engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and RPC 7.1, prohibiting making false or misleading communications about the lawyer or the lawyer's services.

Timothy Leachman and Maria Regimbal represented the Bar Association. Ms. Shea represented herself. The hearing officer was Jack Cullen.

G. Michael Sweet (WSBA No. 1808, admitted 1968), of Seattle, has been disbarred by order of the Supreme Court effective March 27, 2000, following a hearing. The discipline is based upon his misappropriation of client and law firm funds.

Matter 1: Mr. Sweet was a partner in a law firm from approximately January 1987 until April 1991. During that time, Mr. Sweet managed several real estate partnerships through which the firm members invested. Between March and December 1990, Mr. Sweet misappropriated approximately $55,866 from three of these partnerships. Mr. Sweet caused distributions to be made without the partnerships' authorization. He also increased the amount due from the partners. In March or April of 1991, after questioning by his law partners, Mr. Sweet admitted taking $9,000. During this same period of time, Mr. Sweet misappropriated approximately $24,500 of firm money paid by clients for attorneys' fees. In April 1991, Mr. Sweet repaid the firm $24,500.

Matter 2: In April 1991, Mr. Sweet transferred to inactive status. On May 18, 1992, he was suspended from practicing law in Washington for failure to pay his Bar Association licensing fee. In September 1993, a personal friend contacted Mr. Sweet about advice on settling his father's estate. Mr. Sweet told the friend that he was retired from practicing law and recommended Ms. L to the friend. Mr. Sweet also told the friend that because Ms. L

was newly admitted to the Bar, Mr. Sweet would supervise her work. The friend retained Ms. L to handle the probate of his father's estate. The friend was named personal representative. Mr. Sweet periodically consulted with the friend and gave legal advice about the estate.

In December 1993, Mr. Sweet asked the friend for $2,200 to pay an accountant to file income tax returns for the estate. Mr. Sweet also contacted the real estate broker and a mortgage company regarding the sale of the house that was part of the estate. When the house sold in July 1994, Mr. Sweet told Ms. L that he had the friend's permission to invest the proceeds. Ms. L deposited the $46,166.76 check into her pooled IOLTA account and then paid the money out either to Mr. Sweet or third parties at Mr. Sweet's direction. Mr. Sweet did not repay or invest the money. In October 1994, Mr. Sweet told the friend that he was taking the probate file from Ms. L to be sure she had done the work correctly. In November or December 1994, Mr. Sweet told the friend that he was afraid Ms. L had stolen the $47,000 she had put into her trust account. In late December 1994, Mr. Sweet admitted to the friend that he had talked Ms. L into giving him the house proceeds.

Matter 3: In 1993, a friend asked Mr. Sweet to prepare loan transaction documents. The friend planned to loan his son money to pay off the son's home mortgage. On May 5, 1993, the friend gave Mr. Sweet a check for $48,000 to pay off the son's mortgage. Mr. Sweet deposited this money into his personal bank account. Mr. Sweet paid the son's monthly mortgage payments until August 1994. When the son learned that the mortgage had not been paid off, Mr. Sweet told him that there was a problem with the escrow company. Mr. Sweet did not pay off the mortgage. On December 22, 1993, Mr. Sweet went to the friend's house and told him that someone had threatened to kill Mr. Sweet's wife and two children. At Mr. Sweet's request, the friend gave him $12,000. Mr. Sweet promised to repay the loan with interest. Mr. Sweet did not repay the loan until July 1994, when the friend threatened to tell Mr. Sweet's wife about his comment regarding the death threats. There was never a death threat against Mr. Sweet's family.

On February 14, 1997, Mr. Sweet pleaded guilty to two counts of theft in the first degree. Mr. Sweet received an exceptional sentence on April 11, 1997. The court also ordered restitution.

Mr. Sweet's conduct violated RCW 9A.56.030; RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; RLD 1.1(l), subjecting lawyers to discipline for practicing law while on inactive status or while suspended from the practice of law for any cause; and RLD 1.1(p), subjecting lawyers to discipline for conduct demonstrating unfitness to practice law.

Jean McElroy represented the Bar Association. Mr. Sweet represented himself. The hearing officer was David T. Patterson.

Kenneth R. Mitchell (WSBA No. 17401, admitted 1987), of Tacoma, has been suspended for 60 days following a stipulation by order of the Supreme Court dated April 13, 2000. The discipline is based upon his failure to diligently represent and accurately communicate with a client, failure to refund advanced costs, and failure to cooperate with the Bar Association.

On August 6, 1990, a client retained Mr. Mitchell to collect unpaid trailer rental charges. The client paid Mr. Mitchell $200 for the court filing fee. Several weeks later when the client called, Mr. Mitchell told the client the lawsuit had been filed. The client called periodically for status updates and Mr. Mitchell told him the case was going well. Sometime prior to the summer of 1993, the client went to the Pierce County courthouse and learned that the lawsuit had not been filed. Two weeks later, Mr. Mitchell admitted he had not filed the lawsuit and promised to make the client's case a priority.

On June 28, 1993, Mr. Mitchell wrote to the opposing party, referring to himself as the client's lawyer in a matter pending before the Superior Court of Pierce County. Mr. Mitchell told the client that he had scheduled depositions and that they were continued. The client took time off from work to attend the depositions. When they did not occur, Mr. Mitchell asked the client for documentation of his lost wages, stating that he would seek sanctions against the opposing party.

On September 9, 1994, Mr. Mitchell admitted to the client that he had not filed the lawsuit or scheduled the depositions. Mr. Mitchell agreed to refund the client's $200, but had not done so at the time the stipulation was signed. The client filed a grievance with the Bar Association. Mr. Mitchell did not respond to the Bar Association's requests for information until he appeared for a deposition. He did not provide the documents requested in the subpoena duces tecum.

Mr. Mitchell's conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent clients; RPC 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients informed of the status of their matters and promptly respond to reasonable requests for information; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; RPC 1.14(b)(4), requiring lawyers to promptly deliver client funds held by the lawyer, upon request; RPC 1.15(d), requiring lawyers to protect clients' interests when withdrawing from a case; and RLD 2.8, requiring lawyers to cooperate with Bar Association investigations.

Marsha Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. Mr. Mitchell represented himself.