January 2006
Lawyer’s Fund For Client Protection
by Robert Welden
Note: This is part one of a two-part report. Part two will appear in February’s Bar News.
The Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection Committee meets quarterly to review applications for gifts from the Fund. The Committee is authorized to make gifts of up to $25,000 to eligible applicants. On applications for more than $25,000 the Committee makes recommendations to the Board of Governors who are the Fund’s trustees. At their meeting on November 18 the Committee took the following actions:
David A. Ambrose (WSBA No. 21764; suspended) — Ambrose stipulated to a two-year suspension. Reinstatement will require meeting several conditions, including restitution to various parties.
Applicant A: Applicant hired Ambrose regarding a boundary and easement dispute she had with a neighbor. She paid him $500 for a “site visit.” He came to look at the boundaries, and said he needed $2,000, which she paid. After that, Applicant had difficulty reaching Ambrose, and when she did, he told her he had not filed her case because of illness, vacation, holidays, and other excuses. When Ambrose had done nothing by February, Applicant wrote him asking him to return her money. She received no response. The Committee approved payment of $2,000.
Applicant B: Applicant paid Ambrose $750 to seek a permit to dig a well. Ambrose did nothing. Applicant left messages that were never returned. He filed a grievance with the WSBA and was advised by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel that Ambrose was suspended. The Committee approved payment of $750.
Terry O. Forbes (WSBA No. 5626; suspended pending discipline; disbarment recommended) — Forbes abandoned his law practice and disappeared. Pursuant to ELC 7.7, an attorney was appointed custodian to protect Forbes’s clients’ interests. The appointed attorney took custody of Forbes’s trust account, which contained $71,603.37. Because of the state of Forbes’s trust account records, a WSBA auditor was unable to determine the ownership of those funds. The Supreme Court authorized the bank holding those funds to transfer them to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, and all known clients are being advised that if they believe Forbes was to have been holding their funds, they may make an application to the Fund.
Applicant was selling his house, and Forbes agreed to represent him. Forbes deposited into his trust account a check payable to Applicant from a title insurance company in the amount of $86,380.45. Forbes made three payments to Applicant from his trust account totaling $13,800. At that point, Forbes should have been holding $72,580.45 in his trust account on behalf of Applicant. About this time, Forbes abandoned his law practice and disappeared. Applicant hired a new lawyer who tried unsuccessfully to contact Forbes. In August 2005, the Board of Governors approved an emergency payment to Applicant of $3,000. The Committee recommended and the Board approved an additional payment to Applicant of $69,580.45.
Todd H. Hutchinson (WSBA No. 14389; disbarred) — Applicant’s mother established a trust shortly before she died. Applicant and her children were the beneficiaries. Applicant paid Hutchinson $1,000 to represent her to seek an accounting for their funds from the trustee. The attorney representing the trustee met one time with Hutchinson. Hutchinson proposed that a bank be substituted as the trustee. He said he would draft a letter formally setting forth this proposal. He did nothing and Applicant never heard from him again. The Committee approved payment of $1,000.
Michael Johnson-Ortiz (WSBA No. 23580; disbarred) — Johnson-Ortiz abandoned his high-volume immigration practice in January 2004, and left more than 300 open files. The Committee has previously approved 66 applications totaling $100,420.31.
Applicant A: Applicant was arrested and placed in removal proceedings in 1997. He paid Johnson-Ortiz $2,500 to file an application for adjustment of status. Johnson-Ortiz filed the petition, and an INS interview was held, at the conclusion of which Johnson-Ortiz was sent a letter directing Applicant to submit various financial records relating to his sponsor. On June 11, 2001, the INS wrote to Johnson-Ortiz that the documents were never submitted, and that the INS intended to deny the application for adjustment unless, within 30 days, he submitted the documents. Johnson-Ortiz did not file them and Applicant was not aware that Johnson-Ortiz had not filed these documents until May 2004, when he received a notice to appear for a removal hearing. Applicant’s current lawyer filed a new application for adjustment to status in January 2005, and Applicant was granted permanent residency status on July 18, 2005. He accomplished in seven months what Johnson-Ortiz failed to do in seven years. In addition, for reasons that are not clear, Johnson-Ortiz advised applicant to file for marriage dissolution. Applicant paid Johnson-Ortiz $1,500 plus costs. Johnson-Ortiz filed a summons and petition and did nothing more. The petition was dismissed on the clerk’s motion. The Committee approved payment of $8,214.84.
Applicant B: Applicant was a Polish seaman who entered the United States as a crewman in 1990 and stayed. He applied for asylum, which was denied. In 1997 he was ordered to appear for hearing. He appeared, and the hearing was continued to allow him to obtain counsel. He was given notice that the new hearing date was September 18, 1997. He failed to appear in court, and he was ordered removed. Applicant moved to reopen on September 9, 1998, arguing that he was eligible for benefits under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA). The motion was denied on on the grounds that as an arriving crewman, Applicant was not eligible for an adjustment of status. That decision was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
On June 18, 2002, Applicant paid Johnson-Ortiz $4,000 to represent him. Johnson-Ortiz filed a application for adjustment to status, for which Applicant paid $1,425 in filing fees, even though the 1999 decision determined that Applicant was not eligible for an adjustment to status. Johnson-Ortiz also filed a new motion to reopen before the Board of Immigration Appeals. It was denied. Johnson-Ortiz then moved to reopen the removal proceedings before the original trial judge on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The immigration judge denied the motion.
Johnson-Ortiz also applied for a work authorization permit for Applicant in which he failed to disclose that Applicant had a removal order, which made him ineligible. The Committee determined that Johnson-Ortiz did nothing of value for Applicant and he filed false information in connection with the work permit application. The Committee approved payment of $4,000.
Applicant C: Applicant hired Johnson-Ortiz to file a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Applicant documented payment of $2,000. Johnson-Ortiz never filed the motion to reopen. The Committee approved payment of $2,000.
Kevin M. Kopra (WSBA No. 29651; suspended) — Applicant paid Kopra $1,500 to file a lawsuit against his father and a finance company regarding a dispute over a piece of real property. Applicant kept contacting Kopra and Kopra always promised he was about to file suit. Finally, Kopra told Applicant that he could not do it, and that he would refund Applicant’s money. Kopra sent Applicant a check for $250 which bears the notation “No. 1 payment — Bal. Due $1,250.” That was the only payment Applicant received. The Committee approved payment of $1,250.
Donna J. Light (WSBA No. 22465; suspended pending discipline; disbarment recommended) — Light was suspended from practice pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings. The petition for interim suspension says that she posed a threat to the public because, among other things, she engaged in a pattern of charging clients flat fees for legal work, failed to perform the work, and failed to return unearned fees.
Applicant A: Applicant paid Light $1,200 to appeal a decision of the Employment Security Department finding that he had been overpaid by $947. Light filed a two-page petition for review. She received a scheduling order setting the hearing date and other deadlines. After August 2003, Applicant was unable to reach Light. Light failed to prepare for or appear at the hearing. The court entered findings presented by the department, and a copy was sent to Light. She never advised Applicant of entry of the findings or took any action regarding them. The hearing officer found that Light charged Applicant an unreasonable fee, and she was ordered to pay restitution of $1,200. The Committee approved a payment of that amount.
Applicant B: Applicant paid Light $1,500 to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Light prepared a bankruptcy petition which Applicant signed. Between October 2003, and October 2004, Light did not respond to messages from Applicant regarding the status of his bankruptcy. The petition was not filed until June 12, 2004. Light did not pay the filing fee, and did not file the required schedules, statement of financial affairs, Chapter 13 plan, list of creditors, and other documents. Light did not tell Applicant the petition had been filed. Light received several notices from the court that the petition would be dismissed for deficient filing unless she filed the required documents. She took no action in response to the notices. Subsequently, Light was notified that the petition had been dismissed. She never told Applicant, and took no remedial action. Applicant learned for the first time from a loan officer that his bankruptcy had been dismissed. Applicant contacted Light and demanded the return of his fee. Light told him she did not have the funds to repay him, but that she would refile the bankruptcy. She never refiled and never returned any of Applicant’s money. The Hearing Officer ordered restitution of $1,500 and the Committee approved payment of that amount.
Applicant C: Applicant paid Light $300 to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and agreed to pay an additional $250 and the filing fee. The bankruptcy petition and schedules Light filed did not disclose a previous bankruptcy as required; falsely stated that Applicant was employed; falsely certified that Applicant had not paid any fees to Light, so that she could qualify to pay the filing fee in installments; and showed that she had negative income after paying expenses, which meant that she could not confirm a Chapter 13 plan. The Hearing Officer found that Light’s falsifications on the bankruptcy filings were false and misleading, and the Committee approved payment of $300.
Applicant D: Applicant hired Light to file a pro se petition for modification of child support. The petition was denied. Applicant paid Light $500. Light told her she could have the support lowered to $25 per month. Light told her to start making payments of only $25 per month, saying “What can they do?” Applicant followed Light’s advice and never heard from her on the matter again. As a result, Applicant was found in contempt of court and her driver’s license was suspended for nonpayment of support.
Applicant met with Light at her home to discuss seeking modification of her parenting plan. She gave Light a check for $1,500 and heard nothing further.
Applicant paid Light $200 regarding a protective order against her former husband. She was to meet Light at the Regional Justice Center in Kent. Applicant purchased the necessary forms. Light arrived late and filled out the forms incorrectly. Applicant’s former husband appeared, and a temporary restraining order was entered and a hearing for a permanent order was set. At that hearing, Light arrived late, claiming she had misplaced a supporting doctor’s note. The motion was denied. That evening, Light faxed Applicant a “Declaration in Support of Civil Contempt” and said she wanted an additional $1,100. Applicant says that after looking over her work, she discharged Light as her lawyer. Applicant asked Light about the $1,500 she had paid for modification of her parenting plan that Light had failed to prosecute. Light told her she had spent it but that she would pay it back. Applicant went to Light’s office to seek return of her files and documents and the $1,500. All of Light’s clothing, furniture and client records were on her front porch, and a notice of eviction was posted on the front door. Light never returned any of Applicant’s fees. The Committee approved payment of $2,000 representing the fees paid in the child support and parenting plan matters.
Applicant E: Applicants paid Light $1,500 to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. They signed a petition prepared by Light, and Light had them also sign a number of blank pages, including the signature pages for the bankruptcy schedules and statement of financial affairs. For several months, Light failed to respond to numerous messages from the Applicants regarding the status of their case. Later, Applicants advised Light that they were no longer employed and thus not eligible to file a Chapter 13 proceeding. Light said she would file a Chapter 7 petition. She didn’t file. A few weeks later, Applicants told Light they were employing a new lawyer, and requested return of their $1,500. Light said she would file the Chapter 7 petition immediately, and schedule a meeting of creditors prior to Applicants’ planned move to Florida. She also said she would return $900 unearned fees. Light never returned the promised $900 to the Applicants. The Hearing Officer ordered $900 restitution and the Committee approved payment in that amount.
Applicant F: Applicants paid Light $800 plus $209 in costs to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Their mortgage holder was threatening foreclosure. Light filed the bankruptcy petition without having it reviewed by Applicants. The hearing officer found that Light knew or should have known that the bankruptcy schedules contained many errors, including failing to list any exemptions; failing to list any assets; and listing the market value of the Applicants’ home as zero when its true market value was $210,000. The mortgage company filed a motion for relief from stay to pursue foreclosure. Light told the Applicants that she would file a response to the motion, but did not. She also told the Applicants that they did not need to attend the hearing on the motion. Light did not attend the hearing and the court granted the mortgage company’s motion. Light took no remedial or corrective action. When the Applicants received a copy of the order, they asked Light what it meant. She told them not to worry, because she was going to convert the bankruptcy from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13.
The meeting of creditors was set and Light told Applicants that they did not need to appear, because of her plan to convert the bankruptcy from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13. Light filed a motion to convert the proceeding, but did not file the required new schedules. She did not attend the meeting of creditors, and the Chapter 7 petition was dismissed. Light continued to claim that she was filing a Chapter 13 proceeding, and told the Applicants that the plan would require monthly payments of $1,825. At her direction, they gave her a cashier’s check in that amount. Light falsely told them the Chapter 13 petition had been filed, but it would not show up on the court’s records the following Monday. Applicants checked with the court and were told nothing had been filed. They contacted a new lawyer who agreed to represent them on the condition that they discharge Light. They went to her office and discovered she had moved out. Then they went to Light’s apartment and the Applicants gave her a letter discharging her. Light gave them their file and a handwritten note reading, “I agree to a refund of some of your money.” She also returned the cashier’s check. She never refunded any of their fees. The Committee approved payment of $800.
Applicant G: Applicant paid Light $2,500 for representation in a marriage dissolution proceeding filed by his wife. Applicant called Light several times, but she did not file a Notice of Appearance until more than one month after she was hired. He says that he continued to have difficulty reaching Light. In May, he received a letter from Light saying that a mediation was scheduled at her office. Applicant and his wife entered into counseling, and he told Light to hold off on the mediation. They reached an agreement, and Applicant called Light and told her that his wife’s lawyer would send her a stipulation to dismissal and that he would expect a portion of his fee returned. Light never responded and never returned the stipulation. Applicant wrote a letter discharging Light, and he signed the stipulation pro se. The Committee approved payment of $2,500.
Applicant H: Applicants paid Light $750 to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. She filed the petition but failed to appear for the first meeting of creditors. The trustee continued the meeting date and told Applicants that the schedules and statements of financial affairs Light had filed were inaccurate and incomplete. At the continued meeting of creditors, Light brought amended schedules and statements. However, because they were not filed prior to the meeting, it was again rescheduled. Before the next creditors’ meeting, the Applicants discharged Light and contacted the trustee to determine which documents were still needed. They provided them, and a discharge of debtor was entered. The trustee wrote Light a five-page letter relating the history of her representation of the Applicants, describing Light’s representation as “horrible” and “worthless.” He directed her to refund the $750 fee to the Applicants. Light never returned the fee. The Committee approved payment of $750.
Restitution: Before payment is made to an Applicant, the Applicant must sign a subrogation agreement with the Fund, and the Fund seeks restitution from the lawyers. Because in most cases those lawyers have no assets, the chief avenue of restitution is through court-ordered restitution in criminal cases. Prosecuting attorneys cooperate with the Fund in getting the Fund listed in restitution orders. As of November 2005, seven lawyers were making regular restitution payments to the Fund.
The Committee chair is Tacoma attorney Sarah Richardson. WSBA General Counsel Robert Welden is staff liaison to the Committee.
