September 2005
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: More than 29,000 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
Douglas D. Osterloh (WSBA No. 22730, admitted 1993), of Boring, OR, was disbarred, effective March 23, 2005, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct between 2001 and 2004 involving misrepresentations to clients, lack of diligence, providing false testimony and fabricated documents during disciplinary investigations, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
Matter 1: In 2000, Client A hired Mr. Osterloh to represent her in applying to the INS for a green card. Respondent filed the pertinent documentation on Client A's behalf, but the INS denied Client A's petition in September 2003. Client A followed Mr. Osterloh's advice to reapply rather than appeal. Repeatedly, between January 2003 and November 2003, Mr. Osterloh told Client A that he had filed a new application in January when in fact he had not done so. Client A repeatedly requested a copy of the January 2003 filing; Mr. Osterloh promised to send one to her, and in one instance told her that he had mailed a copy, but he did not do so. The misrepresentations were knowing and intentional.
During an ensuing disciplinary investigation, Mr. Osterloh failed to respond to requests for information, testified falsely during a disciplinary deposition, and provided disciplinary counsel with fabricated documents with the intent to deceive disciplinary counsel into believing that he had filed Client A's petition in January 2003.
Matter 2: In September 2001, another lawyer hired Mr. Osterloh to file an appeal for Client B, whose application to work as a special immigrant religious worker had been denied by the INS. The lawyer paid Mr. Osterloh $1,500 for the representation. Mr. Osterloh never filed an appeal brief on behalf of Client B. In October 2001, the lawyer hired Mr. Osterloh to file an appeal for Client C, whose application to work as a special immigrant religious worker had also been denied by the INS. The lawyer paid Mr. Osterloh $750 to file the appeal. Mr. Osterloh never filed an appeal brief on behalf of Client C, and the appeal was dismissed for that reason in July 2002.
Between October 2001 and October 2003, on numerous occasions, the lawyer asked Mr. Osterloh about the status of the appeals and asked for copies of the briefs. Mr. Osterloh falsely told the lawyer that the briefs had been filed and promised to send copies, but never did so.
During an ensuing disciplinary investigation, Mr. Osterloh failed to respond to requests for information, failed to appear at a deposition as required by subpoena, provided false information, testified falsely at a deposition, failed to produce subpoenaed documents, and provided disciplinary counsel with fabricated documents with the intent to deceive disciplinary counsel into believing that he had filed Client B's and Client C's briefs.
Ms. Osterloh's conduct violated 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; RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting commission of a criminal act (here, perjury) that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer from violating a duty imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct.
Christine Gray represented the Bar Association. Mr. Osterloh did not appear in the proceeding either personally or through counsel. Mark F. Baum was the hearing officer.
Suspended
Ronald F. Chin (WSBA No. 8869, admitted 1979), of Lynnwood, was suspended for two years, effective March 23, 2005, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board. This discipline was based on his conduct between 2001 and 2004 involving failure to deposit client funds into a trust account, failure to maintain complete records of client funds coming into his possession and to render appropriate accounts, failure to adequately supervise a nonlawyer assistant, and failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation.
Matter 1: Between August 1994 and June 2002, Mr. Chin delegated responsibility for handling his trust account to his nonlawyer spouse. During this period, the following conduct occurred and established grounds for discipline:
• Mr. Chin failed to adequately discuss trust account recordkeeping with his spouse, supervise her recordkeeping, adequately discuss with her the requirements for handling trust funds or complying with RPC 1.14, or supervise her handling of client funds.
• Mr. Chin received notice of trust account overdrafts in 1998 and 1999, but failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with RPC 1.14 and continued to delegate responsibility for handling the trust account to his spouse.
• Mr. Chin failed to maintain complete records of client funds coming into his possession (and had no reason to believe that such records were being maintained), failed to maintain a checkbook register for his trust account, failed to maintain individual client ledgers for clients who had funds in his trust account, and failed to maintain a record of trust account activity.
• Between January 2000 and July 2002, funds belonging to Mr. Chin were commingled with client funds held in his trust account, and Mr. Chin's spouse was improperly using and disbursing client funds in Mr. Chin's trust account without the clients' consent, knowledge, or authorization.
Matter 2: In October 1997, Client A hired Mr. Chin to represent him in seeking recovery on a personal-injury claim arising out of an automobile accident. In March 2001, the matter settled for $40,000. Client A's insurance carrier agreed to accept $4,941 as full settlement of its PIP lien. In a closing statement signed by the client, Mr. Chin indicated that $4,941 of the settlement proceeds would be withheld and used to pay the insurance carrier and that Mr. Chin would receive $3,089.50 in attorney fees. The $40,000 settlement check was deposited into Mr. Chin's trust account, but the settlement proceeds were not used to pay the insurance carrier or held in the trust account. In March 2001, Mr. Chin's spouse disbursed $7,000 of the settlement proceeds for purposes unrelated to the client's claim and without the client's knowledge, consent, or authorization. In April 2001, Mr. Chin's spouse withdrew $3,500 from the settlement proceeds to pay Mr. Chin's fees, which represented more fees than Mr. Chin was entitled to receive. During this period, Mr. Chin's trust account was overdrawn by $1,589, which was subsequently remedied when $1,600 of unidentified funds were deposited into the account. After the Bar Association had commenced a disciplinary investigation of the matter, Mr. Chin paid the insurance carrier's claim out of funds other than the settlement funds.
Matter 3: In November 2000, Client B hired Mr. Chin to represent him in various family law matters. Client B issued a $10,000 check, which was deposited into Mr. Chin's trust account; $2,000 was subsequently withdrawn as payment of Mr. Chin's attorney fees. In January 2001, Mr. Chin's spouse transferred $8,000 of Client B's funds from Mr. Chin's trust account into Mr. Chin's general account and used the funds for purposes unrelated to Client B's case without Client B's knowledge, consent, or authorization. Shortly thereafter, the court entered an order requiring Client B to pay $10,000 to his domestic partner within 10 days. Client B directed Mr. Chin to use the $8,000 that was thought to be in Mr. Chin's trust account to pay a portion of the $10,000 obligation. In late January and early February, Mr. Chin's spouse deposited $7,962.08 in unidentified funds into Mr. Chin's trust account to be used to make this payment.
Matter 4: In 1999, Client C hired Mr. Chin to collect a debt. The fee agreement provided that Mr. Chin was entitled to a contingency fee of one-third of the debt collected, plus costs. In May 2000, Mr. Chin received $8,190 as partial payment of the debt owed to Client C, and the funds were deposited into Mr. Chin's trust account. Mr. Chin's spouse withdrew $8,000 of those funds for personal use without Client C's knowledge, consent, or authorization. Mr. Chin subsequently received five additional payments on the debt totaling $7,548. One payment of $1,500 was disbursed to the client; the remainder was deposited into Mr. Chin's general account rather than the trust account. In July 2000, Mr. Chin's spouse deposited $7,860 in unidentified funds from Mr. Chin's general account into the trust account to pay Client C its share of the collected proceeds.
Matter 5: From July 2001 to July 2003, the Bar Association requested information from Mr. Chin relating to overdraft notices indicating that his trust account was overdrawn. Mr. Chin designated responsibility for responding to the grievance to his spouse. Mr. Chin's spouse provided inaccurate information to the Bar Association, including client ledger cards and a check register that were fabricated for purposes of responding to the requests for information. Mr. Chin knew there was delay in providing the requested information and failed to ensure that accurate information was provided in a timely way.
Mr. Chin did not have actual knowledge that his spouse was disbursing and using client funds from his trust account, and all client funds have been paid to the clients or subrogated interests.
Mr. Chin's conduct violated RPC 1.14(a), requiring that all funds of a client paid to a lawyer be deposited into an identifiable interest-bearing trust account and that no funds belonging to the lawyer be deposited therein except as permitted by rule; RPC 1.14(b)(3), requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client and to render appropriate accounts regarding them; RPC 5.3(a), requiring that a partner in a law firm make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that a nonlawyer assistant's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; RPC 5.3(b), requiring a lawyer with direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer assistant to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer from violating a duty imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct; and former Rule for Lawyer Discipline 2.8(a), requiring a lawyer to promptly respond to any inquiry or request for information relevant to grievances.
Jonathan H. Burke represented the Bar Association. Kurt M. Bulmer represented Mr. Chin.
Admonished
Walter M. Hackett Jr. (WSBA No. 1055, admitted 1968), of Bremerton, was admonished by a Review Committee of the Disciplinary Board. The admonition was based on his conduct in 1998 involving lack of diligence.
A client hired Mr. Hackett to represent him in two matters, a contract dispute and a boundary line dispute. The client paid Mr. Hackett $300 for the first case. Mr. Hackett failed to diligently pursue the matter. Although Mr. Hackett believed there were good reasons for delaying the cases, he did not explain those reasons to the client. When the client learned that Mr. Hackett had not filed a complaint in the contract matter, he asked that Mr. Hackett send him any work that had been completed in the case. Mr. Hackett did not send him any materials. The client obtained a small claims judgment against Mr. Hackett for the amount of fees he had paid. Following Mr. Hackett's unsuccessful attempt to appeal the judgment, the court awarded the client an additional $800. As of the date of issuance of the admonition, Mr. Hackett had not satisfied any portion of the judgment.
Mr. Hackett's conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4, requiring a lawyer to keep the 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; and former Rule for Lawyer Discipline 1.1(d), prohibiting a lawyer from purporting to act as a lawyer for any person without the authority of that person.
Jonathan H. Burke represented the Bar Association. Mr. Hackett represented himself.
Nondisciplinary Notices
Suspended Pending Outcome of Disciplinary Proceedings
A. Mark Vanderveen (WSBA No. 18616, admitted 1989), of Shoreline, was suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to ELC 7.1, effective July 28, 2005, by an order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary action.
Suspended Pending Outcome of Disciplinary Proceedings
James L. White (WSBA No. 14132, admitted 1984), of Seattle, was suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to ELC 7.1, effective July 28, 2005, by an order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary action. Note: Mr. White is to be distinguished from James A.D. White of Seattle and James J. White of Vashon.
