June 2001

Disciplinary Notices

Grant L. Harken (WSBA No. 11842, admitted 1981), of Seattle, has been disbarred by order of the Supreme Court effective September 8, 2000, following a default hearing. The discipline is based on his failing to represent two clients in a competent and diligent manner, making misrepresentations to his clients and to the Bar Association, and failing to cooperate with the Bar Association investigation.

Matter 1: On March 23, 1993, Mr. Harken agreed to represent a client on a contingent-fee basis. The client was injured when she fell in a department store. In May 1995, Mr. Harken received a $12,000 settlement check made out to the client and himself, but Mr. Harken did not deposit the check into his trust account. Mr. Harken sent the client $4,619 and retained $3,777 to pay the client's medical bills. Although he specifically told the client and the Bar Association investigators that he would pay the client's medical bills, Mr. Harken did not do so.

In September 1996, Mr. Harken testified in his deposition that the client's funds were still in his trust account; this testimony was false. In October 1997, after the client filed suit against Mr. Harken, he sent her a statement indicating the funds were in his trust account; this statement was also false.

Mr. Harken failed to cooperate with the Bar Association's investigation of this matter.

Matter 2: In January 1997, Mr. Harken agreed to represent a client injured in an automobile accident. The client's employer had a subrogated interest in any amounts recovered to reimburse workers' compensation benefits the employe had paid to the employee.

In May 1997, the insurance company issued a $28,075 settlement check to the client and Mr. Harken. In May or June 1997, Mr. Harken gave the client $4,679. The client was entitled to an additional $2,380 and the employer to $11,585. Sometime between May and November 1997, Mr. Harken removed these funds from his trust account.

In December 1998, after the Department of Labor and Industries sent a letter regarding the unpaid balance, Mr. Harken sent the employer the amount due. As of the date of the findings, the client had not received the balance owed him.

Mr. Harken failed to cooperate with the Bar Association's investigation of this matter.

Mr. Harken's conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring lawyers to provide competent representation; 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.14, requiring lawyers to deposit client funds into the lawyer's trust account; 8.4(b), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in criminal conduct; 8.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and RLD 2.8(a), requiring lawyers to comply with reasonable requests for information from the Bar Association. Mr. Harken's conduct also violated RCW 9A.56.030.

Christine Gray represented the Bar Association. Mr. Harken represented himself. The hearing officer was David B. Condon.

Grosvenor Anschell (WSBA No. 9756, admitted 1954), of Bellevue, has been suspended for two years, effective October 30, 2000, by order of the Supreme Court, following a hearing. For more information, please see the Supreme Court opinion.

Matter 1: In October 1992, a husband and wife paid Mr. Anschell $430 to submit citizenship applications for them and their children to become naturalized citizens of the United States. Both parents are Egyptian citizens and had been permanent residents of the United States for several years; the children are Canadian citizens. The parents completed the naturalization applications on October 27, 1992.

Between this date and September 1994, the clients periodically contacted Mr. Anschell about the status of their case. He told them that the applications had been filed, and that they should not worry. In a September 1, 1994 declaration, Mr. Anschell indicated that he filed the applications, but in fact, the applications were not filed. Failure to file delayed the client's case by over two and a half years. The clients filed a legal malpractice suit and obtained a $68,483.63 default judgment against Mr. Anschell.

Matter 2: On October 5, 1994, a client retained Mr. Anschell to apply for a change of visa status for herself and her daughter. The client needed to change her status from temporary professional worker to visitor/tourist while she looked for employment. Her status was set to expire on October 10, 1994; the daughter wanted to become a permanent resident.

Mr. Anschell did not file the daughter's change-of-status application, nor did he file the mother's change-of-status form until October 25, 1994, after her legal status had expired. Additionally, Mr. Anschell did not comply with an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) order to file the client's form I-797 by April 26, 1995. Because of these delays, the INS denied the client's application due to abandonment. The INS decision indicated that the client had the option to file a motion to re-open within 30 days or submit a new application and fee. Mr. Anschell did not inform the client of the order or her options.

On April 8, 1995, the client found new employment, and again retained Mr. Anschell to change her status back from visitor/tourist to temporary professional worker. She was not aware of the earlier loss of her legal status.

In late 1995 and early 1996, Mr. Anschell did not respond to his client's questions regarding her case. In February 1996, the client's employer contacted Mr. Anschell regarding the client's status; however, Mr. Anschell did not reply.

In March 1996, the client retained new counsel, and requested that Mr. Anschell forward all papers relating to her case to her new counsel. Mr. Anschell did not respond to this request. The INS denied the client and daughter's change-of-status applications because they were out of legal status. As a result, the client and her daughter had to return to England for approximately three weeks and reapply from there to legally re-enter the United States.

Matter 3: On April 7, 1995, Mr. Anschell agreed to represent the wife of an American citizen in her application for permanent resident status. The clients also asked Mr. Anschell to obtain a passport for the wife's daughter, who had been living in Germany. In April 1995, the clients completed the forms, and provided Mr. Anschell with the documentation and required fees.

In October 1995, the clients requested proof that Mr. Anschell had filed the wife's application. Mr. Anschell promised to fax the documents, but never did. The clients then sent a certified letter giving Mr. Anschell until December 1, 1995 to either send proof that he had filed the application, or return the clients' money and INS packet. Mr. Anschell did not respond.

Mr. Anschell did not file the clients' application, and lost the wife and daughter's files. At the time of the hearing, he had not located the daughter's original German passport or the wife's original medical papers.

Matter 4: Mr. Anschell failed to cooperate with the investigations of these matters. He failed to return phone calls and answer written requests for information. Disciplinary counsel was compelled to depose Mr. Anschell twice.

Mr. Anschell's conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4(a), requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; 1.4(b), requiring lawyers to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit clients to make informed decisions regarding their respresentation; 1.5(a), requiring lawyers' fees to be reasonable; 1.15(d), requiring lawyers, when withdrawing from a case, to take reasonable steps to protect a client's interests; and RLD 2.8, requiring lawyers to cooperate with disciplinary counsel investigations.

Bernadette Janet and Douglas Ende represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Anschell through the Disciplinary Board hearing. Mr. Anschell represented himself before the Supreme Court. The hearing officer was R. Michael Kight.

Kenneth W. Raber (WSBA No. 4971, admitted 1973), of Yakima, has been ordered censured pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on September 29, 2000. This discipline is based on Mr. Raber's failure to communicate adequately with a client.

In September 1991, Mr. Raber prepared wills and a community property agreement for a husband and wife. In June 1992, the husband died. Mr. Raber met with the wife and daughter, and agreed to resolve the husband's estate. The original community property agreement could not be located, and the parties disputed who had possession of the original documents.

During the delay caused by the missing documents, Mr. Raber resolved creditor and insurance issues. When Mr. Raber could not find the community property agreement, he told the wife that she would have to probate the estate. Mr. Raber stated that he told the wife and daughter that he would not file the probate until the clients paid his retainer fee and money for costs. Mr. Raber did not reduce this requirement to writing. The clients paid the costs, but stated that they did not understand that Mr. Raber would not take any action until they paid the retainer fee. Mr. Raber took no action on the clients' case.

On February 1, 1996, the daughter retained another lawyer to probate her father's estate. The probate was ultimately resolved by stipulation of the heirs.

Mr. Raber's conduct violated RPC 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep their clients reasonably informed about the status of their cases and to explain matters to the extent necessary for the clients to make reasonable decisions about their representation.

Leslie Allen represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Raber.

Lina Beckford (WSBA No. 23800, admitted 1994), of Olympia, has been ordered censured pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on September 29, 2000. This discipline is based on her changing the wording in declarations after they were signed, without discussing the changes with the witnesses.

In 1997, Ms. Beckford represented a father in a modification of his parenting plan, filing several declarations in support of her client's motion. Ms. Beckford's client obtained written statements from witnesses, and she drafted formal declarations based on these statements. In drafting, Ms. Beckford changed the wording and meaning of the witnesses' statements. One witness stated: "in the past I have seen [the mother] drink in the tavern and then go outside to the parking lot to take straight shot pulls off bottles of hard alcohol. She comes in to gamble frequently.…"

The declaration Ms. Beckford drafted for the witness stated: "I believe that [the mother] has a serious alcohol problem" and "I believe that [the mother] is an alcoholic and compulsive gambler." Ms. Beckford then gave the declarations back to her client, who obtained the witnesses' signatures. No one from Ms. Beckford's office contacted the witnesses or discussed the changes made in the statements with them. Subsequently, three of the witnesses filed second declarations with the court stating that the originals submitted by Ms. Beckford were untruthful.

Ms. Beckford's conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring lawyers to provide competent representation to their clients.

Becky Neal represented the Bar Association. Leland Ripley represented Ms. Beckford.

Brian T. Butler (WSBA No. 15529, admitted 1985), of Spokane, has been ordered censured pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on September 29, 2000. This discipline is based on Mr. Butler's failure to diligently represent and communicate with a client.

In August 1994, Mr. Butler agreed to represent a client in an intentional tort claim against the client's employer. The client was employed as a horticulturist at a cemetery and was asked to assist in a child's burial. This experience was devastating to the client, who resigned his position. Although Mr. Butler did not prepare the required written fee agreement, he agreed to represent the client on a contingent-fee basis.

The client asked Mr. Butler if he should file a claim against the employer with the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I). The parties dispute whether Mr. Butler advised the client to seek advice from a lawyer familiar with these claims, or whether he advised the client that the claim would not be worth pursuing. Neither Mr. Butler nor the client pursued the claim, and the statute of limitations expired.

In September 1995, after receiving no written communication or billing statements from Mr. Butler, the client requested his file. The client discovered that Mr. Butler had taken no action, and that his file contained only the intake notes and correspondence from a psychologist that the client had seen.

On June 3, 1997, the client's subsequent counsel filed a complaint for damages against the former employer. The case was dismissed on summary judgment as being barred because the client had not filed a claim with L&I.

Mr. Butler's conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to act diligently; 1.4, requiring lawyers to explain matters to the extent necessary for clients to make reasonable decisions about their matters; and 1.5(c)(1), requiring contingent-fee agreements to be in writing.

C. Elizabeth Williams represented the Bar Association. Mr. Butler represented himself.

John A. Walsh (WSBA No. 20603, admitted 1991), of Seattle, has been ordered censured pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on September 29, 2000. This discipline is based on Mr. Walsh's violation of a court order during a jury trial.

In April 1996, Mr. Walsh represented a client in a criminal jury trial. The client was charged with second-degree assault against his wife. During the trial, Mr. Walsh called the wife as a defense witness and asked if she had ever testified in a domestic violence matter. After the prosecutor objected, the trial judge ruled that the answer to the question was inadmissible character evidence. Mr. Walsh then asked the witness if her former husband had been convicted of domestic violence. After the prosecutor objected to this question, Mr. Walsh shouted and pointed his finger at the witness, who then answered "yes."

The court subsequently found Mr. Walsh in contempt of court and sanctioned him $500. Mr. Walsh paid the sanction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's contempt findings and sanction.

Mr. Walsh's conduct violated RPCs 3.4(c), requiring lawyers to obey rules of the tribunal; and 8.4(d), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Jean K. McElroy represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Walsh.

Louis B. Byrd Jr. (WSBA No. 19659, admitted 1990), of Vancouver, has been ordered censured pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on September 29, 2000. This discipline is based on Mr. Byrd's direct contact with represented parties.

Mr. Byrd represented a student and his parents regarding an individualized education program (IEP) for the student as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

On August 24, 1999, the school district's representative faxed Mr. Byrd a letter stating that RPC 4.2 prohibited him from making any direct contact with individuals in the school district regarding the case. Mr. Byrd immediately responded, stating that as the client's agent, he had authority to communicate with some district personnel about educational issues.

In September and October 1999, Mr. Byrd sent letters to district personnel asking that a meeting date be rescheduled, and questioning the qualifications of the members of a school district IEP review panel.

On October 25, 1999, the school district representative sent a letter to Mr. Byrd objecting to his contacting the district regarding another student. Mr. Byrd responded that he had no intention of contacting the district representative for issues that were not directly in litigation at either an administrative or local court level.

On January 21, 2000, Mr. Byrd sent his 10-day notice of intent to file due process litigation directly to the school district superintendent.

Mr. Byrd's conduct violated RPC 4.2, prohibiting lawyers from communicating about the subject matter of the representation with persons the lawyer knows are represented by counsel, without consent of the other lawyer or legal authority to do so.

Nancy Miller represented the Bar Association. Mr. Byrd represented himself.

Back to table of contents >>