September 2002

Disciplinary Notices

Sharon Bartu (WSBA No. 17080, admitted 1987), of Vancouver, was disbarred by order of the Supreme Court effective March 13, 2002, following a default hearing. This discipline is based on her failing to diligently and competently represent two clients, charging unreasonable fees, and making misleading statements about her services in 1998.

Matter 1: In 1998, Ms. Bartu agreed to represent a husband and wife (Mr. and Mrs. J) and the husband's brother (FJ) in becoming residents of the United States and obtaining green cards. Mr. J paid Ms. Bartu $3,900 and FJ paid her $2,600. In November and December 1998, Ms. Bartu filed a cancellation of removal pleading for the clients. This pleading requested relief that is only available to aliens after a charging document has been filed with the immigration court by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), vesting jurisdiction in the immigration court. The INS had not filed charges against Ms. Bartu's clients, so filing this pleading had no effect on the clients' immigration proceedings. Ms. Bartu's office filed an application to renew all three clients' employment authorization cards, but Ms. Bartu took no further action on the clients' cases.

Matter 2: In 1998, Ms. Bartu agreed to assist an Iranian citizen in obtaining permanent residency status in the United States. The client, whose student-visa status had expired in 1997, paid Ms. Bartu $3,000. In October 1998, Ms. Bartu filed an application for cancellation of removal. The relief requested in this application is available only after deportation proceedings have begun; however, the client had not been placed in deportation proceedings. Ms. Bartu took the client on a tour of the immigration court in Portland, then took no further action on the client's case.

In early 2000, the client contacted the INS and learned that Ms. Bartu had filed the wrong form. The client made an appointment with Ms. Bartu to discuss his case, but she failed to appear. The client asked that Ms. Bartu explain how she planned to proceed on his case, or return his money. She did not respond to his requests.

Ms. Bartu's conduct violated RPCs 1.1, requiring lawyers to competently represent their clients; 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.7, prohibiting lawyers from making misleading statements about their services; and 1.5(a), requiring lawyers' fees to be reasonable. The sanction imposed in this matter included consideration of significant aggravating factors.

Russell D. Garrett and Kevin Bank represented the Bar Association. Ms. Bartu represented herself. The hearing officer was Dennis W. Lane.

Richard K. Clyne (WSBA No. 21556, admitted 1992), of Seattle, was suspended for two years by order of the Supreme Court on March 13, 2002, following a hearing, and then disbarred effective June 19, 2002, following a second hearing. This discipline is based on his misappropriating funds; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; failing to deposit client funds into a trust account from 1997 to 1999; and failing to diligently represent clients from 1999 through 2000.

Suspension matter 1: In August 1999, Mr. Clyne agreed to represent the father in a parenting plan modification matter. The client's wife had obtained a protective order limiting his visitation with their children. Mr. Clyne failed to appear for the client's December 7, 1999 hearing. On the same day, the client signed pleadings to begin a dissolution proceeding. On December 14, Mr. Clyne told the client that the dissolution pleadings had been filed and that the mother would be served immediately. Later, the client told Mr. Clyne that he wanted a separation instead of a dissolution, and Mr. Clyne indicated that he would change the paperwork. The mother was served with a dissolution petition in March 2000, but Mr. Clyne did not file a petition for dissolution or a petition for separation.

In March 2000, the client asked Mr. Clyne to file a motion for contempt against his wife for violation of the current parenting plan. Mr. Clyne told the client the contempt hearing was scheduled for April 4, 2000, so the client flew from California to Seattle to attend. When the client called to verify the time of the hearing, Mr. Clyne told him that the hearing date was not confirmed and the motion would have to be refiled, although Mr. Clyne actually filed the motion on April 4, 2000.

Suspension matter 2: In March 2000, Mr. Clyne agreed to represent a client in a family-law mediation. The parties did not reach agreement at the mediation, and the opposing party set a superior court hearing for May 25, 2000. On the day of the hearing, Mr. Clyne told the client that the date had been changed to June 7. On the day prior to the hearing, the client called Mr. Clyne to review her response, but Mr. Clyne did not have it prepared. At the hearing, the client was found in contempt of court and sanctioned $1,000. Mr. Clyne prepared a motion for revision, but missed the 10-day deadline for filing the motion. The client requested that Mr. Clyne send a letter to opposing counsel regarding therapy for her child, but Mr. Clyne did not send the letter. The client retained substitute counsel.

Mr. Clyne's conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep their clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters; and 8.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation.

Disbarment: On May 27, 1998, Dr. E contacted a law firm (the firm) for assistance with an ongoing domestic-relations dispute. Mr. Clyne was the lawyer directly responsible for representing Dr. E. Between May 1998 and March 1999, Dr. E made seven fee deposits to the firm totaling $5,000, which were deposited into the firm's trust account. Advanced fees were drawn from the trust account as services were provided. As of May 5, 1999, Dr. E had a trust account balance of $220.71. No further time entries were made by Mr. Clyne on Dr. E's case. A September 7, 1999 statement reflected a small photocopy charge and an adjusted balance of $212.91.

On or about May 24, 1999, Dr. E forwarded a $1,000 check payable to Mr. Clyne for an advance fee deposit. Mr. Clyne deposited the check into his personal account. In September 1999, Dr. E requested a $1,000 refund from Mr. J, the partner who handled billing inquiries. Mr. J found no record of a deposit and asked Dr. E to forward a copy of the canceled check. On September 23 or 24, Mr. J told Mr. Clyne about the inquiry, and Mr. Clyne made no comment about the check. On September 27, Mr. Clyne submitted his resignation to the firm.

On or about September 28, 1999, Dr. E faxed Mr. J a copy of the canceled check with a note. Mr. J was on vacation from September 25 through 29. When he returned, he noted there was no fax from Dr. E, as expected. During the week of October 1, 1999, Mr. J asked Mr. Clyne about Dr. E's inquiry and Mr. Clyne responded that it "had been taken care of," that Dr. E was mistaken about sending a check, and that the trust account records were correct.

On October 5, Mr. Clyne forwarded a check for $1,000 to Dr. E, written on his personal account. On October 6, Mr. J received a call from Dr. E about his money. Mr. J passed the phone to Mr. Clyne, who told Dr. E that it had been "taken care of." Following the telephone conversation, Mr. Clyne told Mr. J that Dr. E wanted to transfer his remaining firm trust-account funds to the departing Mr. Clyne; however, Dr. E had not indicated such a desire to anyone. The firm transferred the remaining $212.91 to Mr. Clyne, who deposited it into his trust account.

In mid-October, Mr. Clyne's check to Dr. E bounced. On October 16, not realizing Mr. Clyne had left the firm, Dr. E sent an e-mail about the bounced check to the firm. On October 18, Mr. J responded to the e-mail by calling Dr. E. Mr. J requested copies of the September 28, 1999 fax and Mr. Clyne's October 5, 1999 personal check. After reviewing these documents, Mr. J forwarded two checks to Dr. E for the $1,000 deposit and the $212.91 balance. On October 23, Mr. Clyne telephoned Dr. E to discuss representation in the ongoing case. Dr. E told Mr. Clyne that he would continue to be represented by the firm. Dr. E never negotiated the checks from the firm, because Mr. Clyne subsequently reimbursed Dr. E for those amounts.

Mr. Clyne's conduct violated RPCs 8.4(b), prohibiting lawyers from committing crimes which reflect adversely on a lawyers' honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer; 8.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and 1.14, requiring lawyers to deposit all client funds paid to them in a trust account.

Linda Eide represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Clyne. The hearing officer was George S. Lundin.

Daniel J. Rodriguez (WSBA No. 27321, admitted 1997), of Tacoma, was disbarred by order of the Supreme Court effective June 19, 2002, following a hearing. This discipline is based on his committing acts of moral turpitude, lack of diligence, and charging unreasonable fees to clients.

Matter 1: In March 2000, Mr. P retained Mr. Rodriguez to represent him in a criminal appeal, paying Mr. Rodriguez $4,000. On June 30, 2000, Mr. Rodriguez filed a notice of appeal on behalf of Mr. P. Mr. Rodriguez did not pay the filing fee, nor did he file a request for an order of indigency.

On August 7, 2000, Mr. Rodriguez filed a motion to extend the deadline to submit the filing fee or to file a request for an order of indigency. On August 15, 2000, the court of appeals granted an extension of time to August 21, 2001. On that date, Mr. Rodriguez filed a letter with the court of appeals stating that he would file a motion for an order of indigency, but he did not do so, nor did he pay the filing fee. Mr. Rodriguez failed to inform Mr. P that he had neither paid the filing fee nor requested an order of indigency.

On October 12, 2000, the Court of Appeals determined the appeal had been abandoned and remanded the case back to Kitsap County. Mr. Rodriguez did not refund any of the $4,000 to Mr. P, and failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.

Matter 2: In or about the spring and summer of 1999 and in August 2000, Mr. Rodriguez engaged in sexual contact and sexual intercourse, as those terms are defined by law, with ST. This conduct violated RCW 9A.44.079 (rape of a child in the third degree) and RCW 9A.44.089 (child molestation in the third degree). In January 2001, the Pierce County prosecutor charged Mr. Rodriguez with three counts of child rape and three counts of child molestation in the third degree. Mr. Rodriguez did not respond to the notice and summons for his arraignment on January 31, 2001. After a warrant was issued for his arrest, he left the area. On January 29, 2001, Mr. Rodriguez was asked to respond to a grievance regarding these criminal charges, but failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.

Matter 3: Mr. Rodriguez represented GE in a civil rights case set for trial on January 22, 2001. Mr. Rodriguez did not timely file several required pretrial pleadings, including jury instructions and a trial brief. The court issued a number of orders requiring Mr. Rodriguez's client to file specific pleadings by certain dates. Mr. Rodriguez did not comply fully with these orders. In February 2001, the court dismissed GE's case for failure to prepare for trial.

Matter 4: Mr. Rodriguez represented JE in an appeal of a criminal conviction. On January 30, 2001, the court dismissed the appeal "as it appears to have been abandoned." The dismissal resulted from Mr. Rodriguez's failure to pay a sanction required by court order for late filing of clerk papers.

Mr. Rodriguez's conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to act with reasonable diligence; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters; 1.5, requiring lawyers' fees to be reasonable; 3.2, requiring lawyers to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation; and 8.4(d), which states it is professional misconduct for lawyers to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; RLD 2.8(a), requiring lawyers to promptly respond to any inquiry or request made pursuant to the rules for information relevant to a grievance; RCW 9A.44.079, rape of a child in the third degree; and RCW 9A.44.089, child molestation in the third degree.

Anne Seidel represented the Bar Association. Mr. Rodriguez represented himself. The hearing officer was Preston L. Johnson.

Jeffrey R. Bunch (WSBA No. 21790, admitted 1992), of Spokane, was ordered suspended from the practice of law pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings by Supreme Court order approving a stipulation entered May 28, 2002 and effective on May 31, 2002.

Harold E. Norwood Jr. (WSBA No. 19268, admitted 1989), of Lacey, was ordered suspended from the practice of law pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings by Supreme Court order entered May 30, 2002.

Trenidad Hernandez (WSBA No. 25849, admitted 1996), of Yakima, was ordered suspended from the practice of law pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings by Supreme Court order entered March 7, 2002.

Nelson C. Fraley II (WSBA No. 26742, admitted 1997), of Lakewood, was ordered suspended from the practice of law pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings by Supreme Court order entered June 25, 2002.

Interim suspension is pursuant to RLD title 3 and is not a disciplinary sanction.