Disciplinary Notices

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.

Suspended

Charles E. Marunde (WSBA No. 16036, admitted 1986), of Port Angeles, was suspended for six months, effective September 10, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline is based on conduct in two matters involving failure to act with reasonable diligence, lack of communication, charging unreasonable fees, failure to terminate representation when a mental condition impaired his ability to represent the client, failure to protect a client's interests, failure to expedite litigation, and violation of the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct.

Matter No. 1: In May 2006, "Mr. and Mrs. H" hired Mr. Marunde to file a lawsuit on their behalf alleging misrepresentation in the purchase of residential real estate. Mr. and Mrs. H paid Mr. Marunde $2,500. Mr. Marunde filed the lawsuit, and a trial was set for December 7, 2006. Mr. Marunde failed to advise Mr. and Mrs. H that the case was set for trial or of the trial date. He failed to advise Mr. and Mrs. H of developments in the litigation, including that they had been countersued. Mr. Marunde failed to provide Mr. and Mrs. H timely notice of the discovery requests being made of them, failed to comply with the case scheduling order, and failed to comply with the defendants' requests for discovery. On or about November 8, 2006, Mr. Marunde advised Mr. and Mrs. H that he would withdraw from their case due to emotional problems. He did not withdraw from the case. On November 15, 2006, defense counsel filed a motion to exclude evidence based on Mr. Marunde's failure to comply with discovery. The motion was set to be heard on December 1, 2006, one week before the scheduled trial. Mr. Marunde failed to advise Mr. and Mrs. H of the motion.

In late November 2006, Mr. H contacted another lawyer (Lawyer B) about representing them. Mr. and Mrs. H retrieved their file from Mr. Marunde and learned for the first time about the trial date and pending motion. On December 1, 2006, Lawyer B moved to continue the trial date and presented a declaration from Mr. Marunde in which he stated that he had been unable to attend to Mr. and Mrs. H's case because of emotional problems. The court denied the defendants' motion in limine without prejudice, granted the motion to continue conditioned on the payment of sanctions, and issued a new case scheduling order. The parties agreed to sanctions in the amount of $1,500, thereby obviating the need for another hearing, and Mr. and Mrs. H paid the sanctions.

Matter No. 2: In December 2005, a married couple (Mr. and Mrs. S) hired Mr. Marunde to represent them in an action against their neighbors. They paid Mr. Marunde $5,000. There was no written fee agreement. In January 2006, Mr. Marunde filed a complaint on Mr. and Mrs. S's behalf. He did some work on their legal matter over the next two months, then stopped work on the case. Mr. S called Mr. Marunde repeatedly about the status of the case, but Mr. Marunde failed to return his calls. In July 2006, Mr. S went unannounced to Mr. Marunde's home. Mr. Marunde told him he was experiencing personal problems and was depressed. As a result of his problems and resulting inability to handle his cases, Mr. Marunde asked a non-lawyer friend to act as an intermediary between him and some of his clients. Through the friend, Mr. S sought information from Mr. Marunde about his case and demanded a refund of his fees. Mr. Marunde has not refunded any fees to Mr. S.

In March 2007, Mr. S hired another lawyer (Lawyer C) and paid him $3,000. The trial was set for early 2008. Mr. S filed a grievance against Mr. Marunde with the Bar Association. In April 2007, disciplinary counsel asked Mr. Marunde to provide a written response to the grievance. Between May and June 2007, the Association sent three additional letters requesting his response to the grievance. Mr. Marunde failed to file a written response. In August 2007, an investigator with the Bar Association interviewed Mr. Marunde about the grievance. Mr. Marunde agreed to provide the Bar Association with his billing statements and copies of documents, which he stored on his computer. In November 2007, after disciplinary counsel sent Mr. Marunde the analysis letter in this case recommending a hearing, Mr. Marunde provided information and documents in response to the grievance.

Mr. Marunde's conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4(a), requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; RPC 1.4(b), requiring a lawyer to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; RPC 1.5(a), prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses; RPC 1.16(a)(2), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; RPC 1.16(d), requiring a lawyer, upon termination of representation, to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; and RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer from violating a duty or sanction imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct [here, ELC 5.3(e)].

Joanne S. Abelson represented the Bar Association. Mr. Marunde represented himself. William S. Bailey was the hearing officer.

Reprimanded

Kevin L. Cathcart (WSBA No. 32458, admitted 2002), of Portland, Oregon, was ordered to receive a reprimand, entered on May 20, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline in accordance with an order from the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon following approval of a stipulation. This discipline is based on conduct in a malpractice matter involving a misrepresentation made to a tribunal. For more information, see the Oregon State Bar Bulletin (January 2008), available at www.osbar.org/.

Mr. Cathcart's conduct violated Oregon's RPC 3.3, prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal; and Oregon's RPC 8.4(a)(3), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.

Felice P. Congalton represented the Bar Association. Mr. Cathcart represented himself.

Reprimanded

John A. Cimino (WSBA No. 11698, admitted in 1981), of Denver, Colorado, received a reprimand, entered September 15, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline in accordance with an order of the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado following approval of a stipulation. This discipline was based on conduct in two matters involving failure to act with reasonable diligence and failure to properly supervise a nonlawyer assistant. For more information, see The Colorado Lawyer (March 2007), available at www.cobar.org/tcl.

Mr. Cimino's conduct violated Colorado's RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; Colorado's RPC 5.3(a), requiring the lawyer, with respect to non-lawyers employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer, to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and Colorado's RPC 5.3(b), requiring a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the non-lawyer to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.

Joanne S. Abelson represented the Bar Association. Mr. Cimino represented himself.

Reprimanded

Martin E. Nwizubo (WSBA No. 27883, admitted 1998), of Tukwila, was ordered to receive a reprimand on June 19, 2008, by order of the chief hearing officer approving a stipulation. This discipline was based on conduct involving disclosure of a client's confidential information.

"Mr. J" came to the United States on December 9, 2001, from his home country of Gambia. He met with Mr. Nwizubo on September 16, 2002, and November 1, 2002, to discuss filing a petition for asylum. Mr. J was accompanied to each of these appointments by his friend. Mr. J told Mr. Nwizubo that, while living in Gambia, he was arrested and beaten because of his political beliefs. After the first meeting, Mr. Nwizubo asked Mr. J to bring back evidence to corroborate his claim that he had been persecuted in Gambia. Mr. J collected declarations and other evidence. Mr. J states that Mr. Nwizubo then told him that he had too many cases and could not represent him. Mr. J and his friend both state that Mr. Nwizubo never informed Mr. J that there was a one-year deadline in which to bring an asylum petition. Mr. J went to see another lawyer (Lawyer B) to help him with his asylum petition; however, by that time over one year had passed since Mr. J had entered the United States and his petition was time-barred. Lawyer B requested an exception to the one-year requirement based on changed circumstances, but the request was denied.

Mr. J hired a new lawyer (Lawyer C), who determined that Mr. Nwizubo's failure to advise Mr. J about the one-year rule could be the basis to request an exception to the one-year deadline. Lawyer C contacted Mr. Nwizubo on April 11, 2007, and asked him if he remembered Mr. J ever coming in to see him in 2002. At first, Mr. Nwizubo had no memory of Mr. J ever coming into the office. Mr. Nwizubo later recalled meeting with Mr. J and remembered that he decided not to represent Mr. J because he did not believe Mr. J was being truthful with him about his basis for asylum. On April 19, 2007, Lawyer C sent Mr. Nwizubo a letter with a copy of an affidavit from Mr. J. In her letter, Lawyer C said that Mr. J's affidavit would be submitted to the immigration court in support of a motion to re-open the immigration proceedings based on Mr. Nwizubo's ineffective assistance of counsel. She also told Mr. Nwizubo that the affidavit would be submitted to the Washington State Bar Association. The affidavit stated that Mr. Nwizubo had not told Mr. J about the one-year deadline for filing a petition for asylum. On April 23, 2007, Lawyer C brought a motion to re-open Mr. J's case based upon both Mr. Nwizubo's and Lawyer B's ineffective assistance of counsel. The same day, Mr. Nwizubo filed his own affidavit with immigration court. This affidavit stated that he did not trust the facts as presented by Mr. J. Mr. Nwizubo states that he disclosed that he believed Mr. J's asylum claims to be untrustworthy in order to rebut a statement in Mr. J's affidavit that Mr. Nwizubo did not take his case because he was too busy. The court granted Lawyer C's motion to reopen and granted asylum to Mr. J on August 24, 2007.

Mr. Nwizubo's conduct violated RPC 1.6(a), prohibiting a lawyer from revealing confidences or secrets relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are implicitly authorized in order to carry out the representation.

Francesca D'Angelo represented the Bar Association. Leland G. Ripley represented Mr. Nwizubo.

Admonished

Julian "Jay" Nuxoll (WSBA No. 3506, admitted 1965), of Bellevue, was ordered to receive an admonition on February 15, 2007, by order of a hearing officer following approval of a stipulation. This discipline is based on conduct involving failure to communicate.

In 2001 and 2003, "Ms. C" suffered injuries in automobile accidents. Mr. Nuxoll handled a traffic ticket for Ms. C on a pro bono basis. In August 2004, Mr. Nuxoll filed suit for Ms. C in King County Superior Court against other drivers in the 2001 and 2003 accidents. Mr. Nuxoll negligently did not communicate to Ms. C the basis or rate of his fees within a reasonable time after commencing the representation. Early in 2006, Mr. Nuxoll settled the claims. After settlement, Mr. Nuxoll and Ms. C agreed to distributions to each of them, while Mr. Nuxoll tried to negotiate the remaining subrogation claims.

Mr. Nuxoll's conduct violated RPC 1.5(b), requiring that when a lawyer has not regularly represented a client, or if the fee agreement is substantially different than that previously used by the parties, the basis or rate of the fee or factors involved in determining the charges for legal services and the lawyer's billing practices shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing representation.

Linda B. Eide represented the Bar Association. Mr. Nuxoll represented himself. Craig C. Beles was the hearing officer.