October 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.

Suspended

John G. Bell (WSBA No. 4209, admitted 1968), of Seattle, was suspended for 18 months, effective May 12, 2005, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2003 and 2004 involving failure to promptly respond to inquiries and requests for information relevant to a grievance as required by the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct. John G. Bell is to be distinguished from John E. Bell of Olympia and John H. Bell of Tacoma.

In February 2003, the Bar Association received a grievance against Mr. Bell. In March 2003, the Association requested that Mr. Bell respond to the grievance within two weeks. He did not respond to the request nor to a subsequent letter notifying him that the response was overdue and that a failure to respond would subject him to a deposition.

In June 2003, the Association attempted to personally serve Mr. Bell with a subpoena duces tecum. The Association was unable to effect service because Mr. Bell’s office address was a private mailbox facility and he did not answer the door at his residence. In July 2003, the Association again attempted to personally serve Mr. Bell with a subpoena duces tecum but again was unable to effect service.

In August 2003, the Association mailed certified letters to Mr. Bell at his residential and office addresses, instructing him to contact the Association to arrange for personal service. Although the Association received return receipts for the letters, Mr. Bell did not contact the Association as directed.

In October 2003, the Association served Mr. Bell with a petition for interim suspension under ELC 7.2(a)(3) for failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. Mr. Bell did not reply to the Supreme Court’s show cause order and did not appear at the show cause hearing. On November 19, 2003, the Court entered an order suspending Mr. Bell until he complied with the Association’s requests for information.

In March 2004, the Association filed a formal complaint in the matter. In April 2004, the Association filed a motion for default. In May 2004, Mr. Bell filed an answer to the complaint, but did not thereafter participate in the proceedings.

Mr. Bell’s conduct violated RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer from violating a duty imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct (here, ELC 5.3(e), requiring a lawyer to promptly respond to any inquiry or request for information relevant to grievances).

Kevin M. Bank represented the Bar Association. Mr. Bell represented himself. Paul M. Larson was the hearing officer.

Reprimanded

Robert H. Larson (WSBA No. 1385, admitted 1965), of Bangkok, Thailand, was ordered to receive a reprimand on October 21, 2004, following a stipulation approved by a hearing officer. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2001 and 2002 involving failure to inform a tribunal of all relevant facts in an ex parte matter and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

In 2001, Mr. Larson was hired to pursue a cause of action for unlawful trespass for cutting trees and shrubs. The alleged trespass had been committed by an individual (hereinafter referred to as “F.A.”) who resided on property adjacent to the client’s property. Mr. Larson commenced an action against the property owners but did not name F.A., who resided on the adjacent property but did not own it.

F.A. hired a lawyer who, in July 2001, notified Mr. Larson that he represented the individual who had committed the acts alleged in the lawsuit. F.A.’s lawyer notified Mr. Larson that he would be asserting a number of defenses and that F.A. should be substituted as the sole defendant. Mr. Larson subsequently received a notice of appearance filed by F.A.’s lawyer.

In September 2001, Mr. Larson obtained an order adding F.A. as a defendant. The order reflected that F.A. was the individual who allegedly cut down the trees and shrubs as agent for the property owners. In October 2001, F.A.’s lawyer filed and served an answer.

By letter, Mr. Larson subsequently informed F.A.’s lawyer that he was filing a motion for default against the property owners; the letter indicated that Mr. Larson would give F.A.’s lawyer notice if he obtained a default judgment. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Larson received F.A.’s response to the motion for default. Mr. Larson knew from reading the response that F.A. intended to contest the entry of a judgment against the property owners. On October 25, 2001, the court entered an order of default against the property owners.

Both Mr. Larson’s client and F.A. obtained expert arborists to render opinions on the issue of damages. The plaintiff’s arborist valued the damage at $12,500, while F.A.’s arborist valued the damage at $615. The matter was scheduled for arbitration in February 2002.

In January 2002, Mr. Larson obtained an ex parte default judgment against the property owners for $35,000 plus costs and fees without providing notice to anyone. Mr. Larson incorrectly believed that the Civil Rules did not require him to provide notice to obtain a default judgment since he had already obtained an order of default with notice. Mr. Larson did not recall that he had previously agreed to provide F.A.’s lawyer with notice if he sought a default judgment against the property owners.

The motion for a default judgment inaccurately stated, “Defendants were all served on September 18, 2001, and none of them have either appeared or fled an affirmative pleading.” Mr. Larson’s supporting declaration inaccurately stated that he had obtained a default order against F.A. in addition to the property owners. Mr. Larson’s declaration attached a copy of the letter from his client’s arborist expert to support the clam for damages. Mr. Larson did not supply the court with the conflicting opinion by F.A.’s arborist expert.

Mr. Larson never notified the defendant property owners about the default judgment after it was entered. In February 2002, Mr. Larson obtained an ex parte order for voluntary dismissal. The order of dismissal inaccurately stated that the “action” is dismissed without prejudice, and that “no costs are awarded to any party.” Mr. Larson subsequently sent the order of dismissal to F.A.’s lawyer together with a letter stating that “my clients have decided not to go forward with the arbitration and have directed me to non-suit this matter.”

In August 2002, F.A.’s lawyer discovered that a judgment lien had been filed by the plaintiff against the property owned by the other defendants. F.A.’s lawyer reminded Mr. Larson of his October 2001 assurance that he would provide notice if he attempted to obtain a default judgment and asked Mr. Larson to vacate the default judgment. Mr. Larson refused to vacate the default judgment or correct the inaccurate statements in his pleadings.

F.A.’s lawyer filed a motion to vacate the default judgment. Finding that the default judgment was improper, the court vacated the judgment in September 2002 and assessed $2,760 in Civil Rule 11 sanctions plus $108.50 in costs jointly against Mr. Larson and his clients. Mr. Larson personally paid the sanctions and costs.

The matter proceeded to arbitration, after which a judgment for $1,924 plus $871 in costs was awarded to the plaintiff against all the defendants.

Mr. Larson’s conduct violated RPC 3.3(f), requiring that, in an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer inform the tribunal of all relevant facts known to the lawyer that should be disclosed to permit the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse; and RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Jonathan H. Burke represented the Bar Association. Kurt M. Bulmer represented Mr. Larson. James C. Lawrie was the hearing officer.

Reprimanded

Anna K. Nordtvedt (WSBA No. 15622, admitted 1986), of Marina, CA, was ordered to receive a reprimand on March 24, 2005, following a stipulation approved by a hearing officer. This discipline was based on her conduct in 2003 involving obstructing a party’s access to evidence, knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

In January 2003, an individual (hereinafter “L.B.”) provided some documents to Ms. Nordtvedt and asked her to review them. The documents included a deed, a power of attorney, a contract, and a newspaper notice to creditors. Some or all of the documents related to property that was the subject of a quiet title action pending in superior court.

Subsequently, the lawyer for the plaintiff in the quiet title action telephoned Ms. Nordtvedt and asked her about the documents. Ms. Nordtvedt declined to discuss them.

In January 2003, Ms. Nordtvedt was served with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the plaintiff’s lawyer. The subpoena commanded Ms. Nordtvedt to appear at a deposition on February 6, 2003, and produce some or all of the documents that had been delivered to her by L.B. None of those documents contained attorney-client communications between Ms. Nordtvedt and L.B.

On January 27, 2003, after she was served with the subpoena, Ms. Nordtvedt returned the documents to L.B., but Ms. Nordtvedt retained copies.

On January 28, 2003, Ms. Nordtvedt filed a motion to strike the deposition and to quash the subpoena. On January 30, 2003, a superior court judge denied the motion and ordered Ms. Nordtvedt to produce all the documents called for by the subpoena that were not attorney-client communications between her and L.B.

On February 5, 2003, the day before the scheduled deposition, L.B. came to Ms. Nordtvedt’s office and demanded that she give him the copies of the documents that she had retained. Ms. Nordtvedt acceded to the demand and gave L.B. the copies. On February 6, 2003, Ms. Nordtvedt appeared at her deposition without any of the documents called for by the subpoena duces tecum.

Mr. Nordtvedt’s conduct violated RPC 3.4(a), prohibiting a lawyer from unlawfully obstructing another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully altering, destroying, or concealing a document or other material having potential evidentiary value; RPC 3.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and RPC 8.4(j), prohibiting a lawyer from willfully disobeying or violating a court order requiring him or her to do or cease doing an act which he or she ought in good faith to do or forbear.

Scott G. Busby represented the Bar Association. J. Donald Curran represented Ms. Nordtvedt. James P. Spurgetis was the hearing officer.

Nondisciplinary Notices

Suspended Pending Conclusion of Supplemental Proceedings
Lowell V. Ruen (WSBA No. 11407, admitted 1981), of Spokane, was by stipulation suspended pending the conclusion of supplemental proceedings, pursuant to ELC 7.4, effective March 25, 2005, by an order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary action.