August 2007

These notices of imposition of disciplinary sanctions and actions are published pursuant to Rule 3.5(d) of the Washington State Supreme Court Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct, and pursuant to the February 18, 1995, policy statement of the WSBA Board of Governors.

For a complete copy of any disciplinary decision, call the Washington State Disciplinary Board at 206-733-5926, leaving the case name, and your name and address.
Note: Approximately 30,000 persons are eligible to practice law in Washington state. Some of them share the same or similar names. Bar News strives to include a clarification whenever an attorney listed in the Disciplinary Notices has the same name as another WSBA member; however, all discipline reports should be read carefully for names, cities, and bar numbers.

Disbarred

Satwant Singh Pandher (WSBA No. 17269, admitted 1987), of Everett, was disbarred, effective February 6, 2007, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct between 1998 and 2005 in a number of matters involving multiple acts of misconduct.

Mr. Pandher’s conduct establishing grounds for discipline included the following:

• Failing to diligently pursue and protect client interests in three immigration matters and one boundary dispute matter.
• Failing to communicate with clients, making misrepresentations to clients about the status of their cases, failing to respond to client requests for information, and instructing a client not to contact him or the tribunal in order to conceal his own nonfeasance.
• Consulting with an individual about a dissolution matter and then representing the adverse party in the same proceeding without obtaining written consent after a full disclosure of material facts.
• Communicating with a party represented by counsel about subject matter of the representation.
• Continuing to represent a client in an immigration matter despite an inability to communicate with the client owing to a language barrier.
• Misrepresenting facts to an adverse party.
• Failing to communicate to a client the basis, rate, and factors involved in determining the fee charged, charging an unreasonable fee, and charging a fee for which no services were performed.
• Failing to give a client reasonable notice that he was terminating the representation and failing to refund the unearned portion of the fee.

Mr. Pandher’s conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4, requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; RPC 1.5(a), requiring a lawyer’s fee to be reasonable; RPC 1.5(b), requiring a lawyer, when the lawyer has not regularly represented the client or if the fee agreement is substantially different than that previously used by the parties, to communicate to the client the basis or rate of the fee or factors involved in determining the charges for the legal services; RPC 1.9(a), prohibiting a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter from representing another client in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation and a full disclosure of the material facts; former RPC 1.15(d), requiring a lawyer to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned; RPC 3.1, prohibiting a lawyer from bringing or defending a proceeding, or asserting or controverting an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous; RPC 4.1, prohibiting a lawyer, in the course of representing a client, from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; RPC 4.2, prohibiting a lawyer, in representing a client, from communicating about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter; and RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

Kathleen A.T. Dassel represented the Bar Association. Mr. Pandher did not appear either in person or through counsel. Moses F. Garcia was the hearing officer.

Suspended

Gail Schwartz (WSBA No. 28994, admitted 1999), of Spokane, was suspended for six months by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on her conduct involving lack of competence, lack of diligence, failure to expedite litigation, failure to communicate with a client, and failure to abide by a client’s decisions.

In November 2000, a client hired Ms. Schwartz to represent her in a tort matter that had arisen in October or November 1999 when a pitbull terrier escaped from its owner’s yard, ran into the client’s yard, and attacked and injured the client’s dog. While trying to separate the dogs, the client fell and sustained physical injury. The attack occurred within the city limits of Almira, Washington, where a city ordinance prohibited pitbull terriers within the city limits. The client wished to file an action against the dog’s owner and to pursue an action against the city of Almira for failure to enforce the ordinance. The statute of limitations for the client’s tort claim against the city expired three years from the date of her injury (October or November 2002). In January 2000, the client filed a “citizen complaint” with the city of Almira regarding the pitbull attack.

Ms. Schwartz agreed to represent the client and bring an action against the city of Almira, its insurance carrier, and the pitbull’s owner. The client informed Ms. Schwartz that she specifically wanted the matter filed in Spokane County because she felt that she would not receive a fair hearing in Lincoln County. Ms. Schwartz never informed the client that, owing to jurisdictional issues, the matter could not be filed in Spokane County. In October 2001, Ms. Schwartz filed a lawsuit against the pitbull’s owner and the City of Almira in Lincoln County. Ms. Schwartz met with the client twice to discuss the case, but subsequently did nothing more on the matter. The client attempted to contact Ms. Schwartz several times without success.

In early 2002, the client discussed the case with another lawyer. The lawyer informed Ms. Schwartz that the claim was probably deficient and that Ms. Schwartz should dismiss the lawsuit and refile it in an adjoining county in the proper form. The lawyer also recommended that Ms. Schwartz obtain the client’s medical records and communicate more with the client. Ms. Schwartz assured the lawyer that she planned to refile the matter in Spokane County and that she would contact the client and obtain the medical records promptly.

In September 2002, the lawyer contacted Ms. Schwartz and found she had still not done anything on the client’s matter. After referring Ms. Schwartz to the appropriate court rule, the lawyer told Ms. Schwartz that she still thought there was time to take a voluntary nonsuit and refile the claim. She also told Ms. Schwartz that if she wanted to terminate representation, she should file the claim first to protect the client’s rights. In November 2002, Ms. Schwartz dismissed the Lincoln County action with the intent of refiling it in Spokane County, but she never refiled the lawsuit.

Ms. Schwartz’s conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation; RPC 1.2(a), requiring a lawyer to abide by a client’s directives concerning the objectives of representation; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4, requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; and RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.

Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Ms. Schwartz did not appear either in person or through counsel. Frederic G. Fancher was the hearing officer.

Non-Disciplinary Notice

Suspended Pending Outcome of Supplemental Proceedings

Sharon L. Gain (WSBA No. 27972, admitted 1998), of Puyallup, was suspended pending the outcome of supplemental proceedings, pursuant to ELC 7.3, effective June 19, 2007, by an order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary action.