December 2002

Disciplinary Notices

These notices of imposition of disciplinary sanctions and actions are published pursuant to Rule 11.2(c)(4) of the Supreme Court's Rules for Lawyer Discipline, and pursuant to the February 18, 1995 policy statement of the WSBA Board of Governors.

Pursuant to Rule for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct 3.6(b), file materials relating to a matter concluded with an admonition may be destroyed five years after the admonition was issued. In admonition matters, it is the WSBA's policy to remove the disciplinary notice from the Washington State Bar News website archive five years after the admonition was issued, regardless of whether the WSBA's file materials are destroyed.

For a complete copy of any disciplinary decision, call the Washington State Disciplinary Board at 206-733-5926, leaving the case name and your address, or electronically submit your requests at http://pro.wsba.org/forms/publicrequest.asp. A list of recent disciplinary notices is available on the WSBA Website.

Suspended

Gregory E. Grahn (WSBA No. 20312, admitted 1991), of Lakewood, was suspended for 60 days by order of the Supreme Court dated June 19, 2001, approving a stipulation. This discipline is based on his practicing law while his license was suspended in 1999, and lack of diligence and communication with two clients in 1998.

Matter 1: On July 19, 1999, the Supreme Court suspended Mr. Grahn's license to practice law for failing to comply with the Admission to Practice (APR) 11 duty to report continuing legal education credits. Although the Supreme Court notified Mr. Grahn of the suspension, he stated he did not receive this notification. On August 19, an Office of Disciplinary Counsel investigator contacted Mr. Grahn in court, notified him of the suspension, and provided him a copy of the court order.

Mr. Grahn knew of his duties to notify his clients of his suspension, but believed he did not have to comply because he would be reinstated quickly. After completing his CLE requirements and paying the late fee, Mr. Grahn assumed that his license to practice law would be automatically reinstated to active status. Mr. Grahn's license to practice was reinstated by the Supreme Court on September 8, 1999. Mr. Grahn represented clients while his license to practice was suspended from July 19, 1999 through September 8, 1999. He also failed to notify his clients of his suspension and file the required affidavit of compliance.

Mr. Grahn's conduct violated RPCs 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and 1.15(a) 1(1), stating that lawyers shall not represent clients if the representation results in a violation of the RPCs; and RLDs 8.2, prohibiting suspended lawyers from continuing to act as lawyers; 8.1, requiring suspended lawyers to notify clients of their inability to act; and 8.3, requiring lawyers to file an affidavit of compliance regarding the duties in Title 8.

Matter 2: In December 1997, Mr. Grahn agreed to represent the mother in an ongoing marriage-dissolution action. The client gave Mr. Grahn her only copy of the scheduling order showing that trial was set for March 4, 1998. Mr. Grahn requested a continuance, but the court denied the request. Mr. Grahn did not meet with the client after mid-February and did not tell her when the trial would begin. Neither Mr. Grahn nor the client appeared for the trial. The client learned from her daughter that the trial had occurred, and retained another lawyer to set aside the default.

Mr. Grahn's conduct violated RPC 1.4(a), requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters.

Matter 3: In November 1997, Mr. Grahn agreed to represent the father in a marriage-dissolution action. The date of the client's deposition was continued to September 9, 1998. On September 8, Mr. Grahn notified opposing counsel that his client would not appear. Opposing counsel noted a motion to compel the client's attendance and impose sanctions. Opposing counsel continued the motion at Mr. Grahn's request, but rescheduled for a date when Mr. Grahn would not be available. The day prior to the motion hearing, Mr. Grahn sent a letter to opposing counsel and the judge indicating he was unavailable for the motion. He did not file a response to the motion or formally request a continuance. The court struck the client's pleadings and imposed $975 in attorney's fees. Opposing counsel then filed a motion for an order of default. Mr. Grahn appeared, and orally requested that the judge reconsider his earlier order striking the client's pleadings. The court denied the reconsideration request and entered the findings of fact and decree presented by opposing counsel.

Mr. Grahn's conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients.

Anne Seidel represented the Bar Association. Clint P. Johnson represented Mr. Grahn.

Michael J. Pratum (WSBA No. 16187, admitted 1986), of Federal Way, was suspended for two years by order of the Supreme Court following a hearing, effective May 8, 2002. This discipline is based on his disclosing a client's confidences, failing to avoid conflicts of interest, making misrepresentations to the court, and splitting fees with a nonlawyer from 1992 through 1996. The sanction in this case was affected by significant mitigating factors.

In September 1992, Mr. Pratum agreed to represent a client arrested by the South King County Drug Enforcement Task Force. Prior to contacting Mr. Pratum, the client indicated he was willing to be a confidential informant in exchange for leniency by the police. Mr. Pratum briefly met the client outside the police station prior to a meeting with a detective. During the meeting, the detective provided the client an agreement form setting out the agreement between the client and the police. Mr. Pratum and the detective negotiated changes to the wording of the agreement.

During this meeting, the detective mentioned names of suspected drug dealers who were targets of police investigations. The police asked Mr. Pratum's client to provide information regarding these suspected drug dealers. Coincidentally, Mr. Pratum represented one of the suspected dealers identified by the detective. Mr. Pratum called the suspected dealer and told him of his client's confidential-informant deal and that the police were investigating the dealer. The client testified that almost immediately after leaving the police station, he began receiving threats, in person and by telephone.

In February 1996, Mr. Pratum petitioned for an anti-harassment order against his client. The client's cross-petition stated that Mr. Pratum was his attorney. During the hearing, Mr. Pratum denied that he represented the client.

During this time period, Mr. Pratum agreed to reduce another client's legal fees by $100 for every new case the client referred, so long as the fee was over a specific dollar amount.

Mr. Pratum's conduct violated RPCs 1.4(b), requiring lawyers to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit clients to make informed decisions regarding their representation; 1.6, prohibiting lawyers from disclosing clients' secrets and confidences without the client's consent; 1.7(a) and (b), prohibiting lawyers from representing a client if the representation will be directly adverse to another client or materially limited by the lawyer's own interests, without the client's written consent; 8.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and 8.4(d), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Dmitri L. Iglitzin and Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Leland Ripley and David Allen represented Mr. Pratum.

Elissa M. Ryan (WSBA No. 23759, admitted 1994), of Portland, OR, was suspended for 18 months by order of the Supreme Court, effective May 3, 2002. This suspension was reciprocal discipline based on RLD 12.6 and a suspension imposed by the Supreme Court of Oregon. This discipline is based on Ms. Ryan's practicing law while her license was suspended in 1997.

In 1997, Ms. Ryan unintentionally missed a payment on her professional liability insurance. ORS 9.080(2)(a) requires all active members of the Oregon State Bar Association to maintain professional liability insurance. Based on this missed payment, the court suspended Ms. Ryan's license, effective April 11, 1997. She learned of the suspension on April 14, but continued to practice law while her license was suspended. She also failed to notify her clients, the court and opposing counsel of her suspension. In her petition for reinstatement, Ms. Ryan stated that she had not practiced law during her suspension.

Ms. Ryan's conduct violated DR 1-102 (A)(3), DR3-101(B), DR 7-102(A)(5), ORS 9.160 and ORS 9.527(4), prohibiting lawyers from practicing law while their license to practice is suspended, and prohibiting misrepresentation.

Felice Congalton represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Ms. Ryan.