July 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.

Brian M. Keith (WSBA No. 14404, admitted 1984), of Eugene, Oregon, has been suspended for 90 days effective May 20, 2002, pursuant to an RLD 12.6 reciprocal discipline proceeding. Mr. Keith was disciplined by the Supreme Court of California for failing to place client funds in a trust account and misappropriating a portion of those funds in 1997.

In June 1996, an insurance company retained Mr. Keith to represent it in a subrogation lawsuit. In February 1997, Mr. Keith settled the lawsuit and received two drafts payable to himself and the insurance company. Mr. Keith, who was entitled to $23,180.65 in attorney's fees, deposited $46,361.35 into a checking account, not a trust account. Prior to distributing any funds to the client, the balance in the checking account was $1,345.59. The insurance company contacted Mr. Keith several times, asking for an accounting of the funds and payment of their share.

On October 14, 1997, Mr. Keith issued two checks to the insurance company. When the insurance company tendered the first check to the bank, it was returned due to insufficient funds. In December 1997, Mr. Keith issued a partial replacement check from a different checking account. Mr. Keith finally delivered the remaining insurance company funds in June 1998.

Mr. Keith's conduct violated California Business and Professions Code Sections 4-100(A), requiring lawyers to deposit client funds into a trust account; 4-100(B)(3), requiring lawyers to provide accountings to clients upon request; 4-100(B)(4), requiring lawyers to promptly, upon request, deliver client funds in a lawyer's possession to the client; and 6-106, prohibiting lawyers from committing acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.

Felice Congalton represented the Bar Association. Mr. Keith represented himself.

Dale O. Thompson (WSBA No. 14122, admitted 1984), of Salem, Oregon, was suspended for 120 days effective January 30, 2002, pursuant to an RLD 12.6 reciprocal discipline proceeding. This discipline was based on a stipulation to discipline approved by the Oregon Supreme Court involving lack of diligence in two client matters during 1998.

Matter 1: In October 1997, Mr. Thompson began representing a client in a proceeding for post-conviction relief. In February 1998, the court denied the client's petition. Mr. Thompson then agreed to represent the client in an appeal of the first order, but did not file a timely notice of appeal. From April 7, 1998 through June 30, 1998, Mr. Thompson took no substantial action on the client's case.

Matter 2: In February 1998, Mr. Thompson was appointed to represent a plaintiff in a civil-rights suit. In March, Mr. Thompson advised the client to allow the case to be dismissed on summary judgment, explaining that he would prepare and file a new complaint. After March 1998, Mr. Thompson took no further substantial action on the client's case. In August 1998, the court dismissed the client's case for failure to prosecute.

Matter 3: Mr. Thompson failed to comply with disciplinary counsel's requests for information regarding this matter, to respond to several written requests for information, and to appear pursuant to a subpoena issued in February 2000.

Mr. Thompson's conduct violated Oregon Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101(B), prohibiting lawyers from neglecting client matters entrusted to them; and DR-1-103(C), requiring lawyers to respond fully and truthfully to inquiries in disciplinary proceedings.

Felice Congalton represented the Bar Association. Mr. Thompson represented himself.

Mariano Morales Jr. (WSBA No. 19213, admitted 1989), of Yakima, received a reprimand, following a hearing. The discipline is based upon his failure to avoid conflicts of interest, and submitting a declaration using a client's secrets to her disadvantage in 1999.

In 1999, Mr. Morales represented a husband in a criminal proceeding alleging that the client assaulted his wife. When the husband and wife wanted to reconcile, Mr. Morales represented the wife in her attempt to modify, and later terminate, the no-contact order issued in the criminal proceeding. Mr. Morales did not consult with either client regarding the conflicts involved in this representation.

While representing the wife, Mr. Morales prepared and filed a declaration stating that the wife did not believe she was an assault victim. Six months later, the husband filed for dissolution of their marriage and moved ex parte for a restraining order requiring the wife to vacate the family home. In support of the husband's motion, Mr. Morales signed a declaration stating he had great concern that the wife, out of anger, would falsely charge the husband with assault.

Mr. Morales' conduct violated RPCs 1.7(a) and (b), prohibiting lawyers from representing clients if the representation will be directly adverse, unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be affected, and the clients consent in writing following a full disclosure; and 1.9(b), prohibiting lawyers from representing a client in the same or a substantially related matter if the client's interests are materially adverse to a former client, unless the former client consents in writing after a full disclosure.

Joanne Abelson and Dan W. Keefe represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Morales. The hearing officer was James M. Danielson.

Matthew J. Rusnak (WSBA No. 28671, admitted 1998), of Tacoma, received a censure pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board in March 2002. The parties stipulated that in 2000 and 2001 Mr. Rusnak failed to keep a client informed about the status of her matter and failed to diligently represent the same client.

In late 1999, Mr. Rusnak agreed to represent a client in a breach-of-contract claim involving real property. Before the sale closed, the purchaser filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, listing the client as an unsecured creditor. On March 20, 2000, Mr. Rusnak commenced an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court, claiming that the client's debt was not dischargeable. Mr. Rusnak was not able to immediately serve the summons and complaint because the purchaser appeared to be intentionally avoiding service.

On February 5, 2001, the bankruptcy court issued an order requiring the parties to show cause why the case should not be dimissed because service had not been accomplished. On February 20, Mr. Rusnak effected service of process on the purchaser. The court set the show-cause hearing for March 21, 2001. Mr. Rusnak received the court order, but failed to note the date on his calendar. Neither Mr. Rusnak nor the client appeared for the hearing.

On March 26, the bankruptcy court issued an order of dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to appear at the hearing. On March 29, 2001, the court discharged the debtor and closed the bankruptcy proceeding. Mr. Rusnak refunded all client fees and costs.

Mr. Rusnak's conduct violated RPCs 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters; and 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients.

Douglas Ende and Jean McElroy represented the Bar Association. Mr. Rusnak represented himself.