July 2008

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

Tyler M. Morris (WSBA No. 26190, admitted 1996), of Walla Walla, was disbarred, effective April 8, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following approval of a stipulation. This discipline is based on conduct involving soliciting and accepting bribes. Tyler M. Morris is to be distinguished from James Tyler Moore of Walla Walla.

At all relevant times, Mr. Morris was employed as an assistant city prosecutor for the City of Kennewick, which operated a recreation program (Home Base) that provided a place for teens to go after school. The City of Kennewick and the City Attorney’s Office permitted persons charged with misdemeanor criminal offenses and civil infractions to make donations to Home Base to have their cases dismissed or their charges significantly reduced. On more than one occasion between approximately January 1, 2005, and March 1, 2006, Mr. Morris, in his official capacity as an assistant city attorney, corruptly accepted and agreed to accept money from a defense attorney. Mr. Morris agreed to accept the money from the defense attorney intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with the reduction or dismissal of charges against the defense attorney’s clients in Benton County District Court. Mr. Morris asserts that he has no personal knowledge as to where the money he received from the defense attorney came from, or as to the intentions of the defense attorney or his clients as to where the money would be deposited. According to the plea agreement Mr. Morris signed on September 11, 2007, the money came from the defense attorney’s clients and was intended by the clients to be donated to Home Base operated by the City of Kennewick. Mr. Morris retained the money he received from the defense attorney for his personal use. It was not donated to Home Base.

The value of the series of transactions involving payment of money to Mr. Morris from the defense attorney for the reduction or dismissal of charges during the relevant time period exceeded $5,000. The precise amount has yet to be judicially determined. In December 2006, Mr. Morris was charged by indictment with violating several federal statutes in connection with the facts set forth above. On September 11, 2007, Mr. Morris pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) (soliciting a bribe), which is a felony.

Mr. Morris’s conduct violated former RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; and former RPC 8.4(i), prohibiting a lawyer from committing any act involving moral turpitude, or corruption, or which reflects disregard for the rule of law, whether the same constitutes a felony or misdemeanor or not.

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

Suspended

James B. Holcomb (WSBA No. 1695, admitted 1967), of Bainbridge Island, was suspended for six months, effective December 20, 2007, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following an appeal. This discipline was based on conduct involving conflicts of interest.

In 1998, Mr. Holcomb agreed to represent a client for an hourly fee to review files and make recommendations regarding an equal employment opportunity action that the client had filed pro se. Mr. Holcomb and the client later signed a second fee agreement in which Mr. Holcomb agreed to represent the client in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) hearing. When the EEOC denied the client’s claim and the client decided to appeal to the U.S. District Court, the client and Mr. Holcomb agreed to a contingent fee arrangement and signed a third agreement. In 2003, after the District Court dismissed the client’s appeal, Mr. Holcomb and the client entered into a fourth fee agreement in which Mr. Holcomb agreed to file a notice of appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and seek mediation of the client’s claim. Sometime in early March 2003, the client and Mr. Holcomb reached an impasse regarding the representation in the appeal, and Mr. Holcomb withdrew.

From December 1999 through March 2001, Mr. Holcomb borrowed from the client a total of $52,300 in 24 individual loans. The amount of each individual loan ranged from $750 to $3,500. Most of the loans were outstanding for no more than two weeks; the last loan was outstanding for over a year. Mr. Holcomb eventually repaid all of the loans. The loans were not subject to a written loan agreement, payment of interest, penalties or fees, or a schedule for repayment of the principal. Mr. Holcomb did not provide security for the loans, did not advise the client that his personal interests might conflict with the client’s interests, did not obtain a written waiver of a conflict of interest, did not provide the client with information about his current financial condition, and did not advise the client that he could seek independent counsel about the suitability of his loan request. Eleven of the loans were made by cashier’s check to Mr. Holcomb and contained references to the client; 13 of the loans were made by personal check from an account in the name of the client and his wife’s trust and were signed by either the client or his wife. Mr. Holcomb repaid the loans by personal checks made payable to the client.

Mr. Holcomb’s conduct violated former RPC 1.7(b), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s own interests unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents in writing after consultation and a full disclosure of the material facts; and former RPC 1.8(a), prohibiting a lawyer from entering into a business transaction with a client unless the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner which can be reasonably understood by the client, the client is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel in the transaction, and the client consents thereto.

M. Craig Bray represented the Bar Association. Brett A. Purtzer represented Mr. Holcomb. David K. Hiscock was the hearing officer.

Suspended

Brian M. Keith (WSBA No. 14404, admitted 1984), of San Diego, California, was suspended for two years, effective November 6, 2006, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court on reconsideration dated May 1, 2008, imposing reciprocal discipline in accordance with an order from the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona. This discipline is based on conduct involving the commission of a felony.

In March 2005, Mr. Keith drove a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in Placer County, California. As a result of driving under the influence, Mr. Keith failed to stop for a red light and collided with another vehicle. Three other persons were injured in the collision. Police responded to the site of the collision and performed a blood alcohol test, from which Mr. Keith’s blood alcohol content was determined to be .28, above the legal limit. In May 2006, Mr. Keith pleaded guilty to one count of Driving Under the Influence Causing Injury, a felony, in violation of Vehicle Code 23153(a) of the State of California, and was sentenced to a state prison for a term of 16 months.

Mr. Keith violated Arizona’s Ethics Rule (ER) 8.4(b), making it professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.

M. Craig Bray represented the Bar Association. Mr. Keith represented himself.

Admonished

William R. Walton (WSBA No. 14712, admitted 1984), of Tacoma, was ordered to receive an admonition on March 25, 2008, by order of the hearing officer following approval of a stipulation. This discipline was based on conduct involving lack of diligence, failure to communicate with a client, and retaining a fee not fully earned.

In spring 2005, a client hired Mr. Walton to handle a modification of a parenting plan and child-support order. The client paid Mr. Walton $1,000 for the representation. In July, Mr. Walton attended a hearing on the client’s matter. At that hearing, the court wanted additional information to be provided within 30 days; the client promptly provided the information to Mr. Walton, but Mr. Walton did not provide it to the court. Between August and November 2005, the client attempted to contact Mr. Walton many times by telephone, fax and mail to determine the status of her matter. Mr. Walton did not return her contacts. In December 2005, Mr. Walton received a call from the Bar Association asking him to contact the client. Mr. Walton contacted the client and apologized for not getting back to her sooner. Mr. Walton assured the client that he would take care of her matter. He also re-requested the additional information, which the client again provided. The client did not hear from Mr. Walton again about her matter. In February 2006, Mr. Walton intended to contact one of the client’s sons to obtain additional information, but did not do so.

Mr. Walton did not complete the modification for the client and did not earn the $1,000 fee. He has already paid to the client $400 of the $1,000 he owes her. After Mr. Walton ceased work on the client’s matter, the client did not pursue the modification. Without the modification, the client’s sons did not obtain financial assistance from their father and were not able to attend college.

Mr. Walton’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, 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, requiring a lawyer’s fee to be reasonable; and former RPC 1.15(d), requiring a lawyer to take steps to the extent reasonably necessary to protect a client’s interests, such as refunding any advanced payment of fee that has not been earned.

Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Mr. Walton represented himself. Mary H. Wechsler was the hearing officer.

Admonished

Michael W. Gendler (WSBA No. 8429, admitted 1978), of Seattle, was ordered to receive an admonition, effective February 29, 2008, by order of a Review Committee of the Disciplinary Board. This discipline was based on conduct involving failure to clearly communicate to a client the basis of his fees.

In January 2004, Mr. Gendler agreed to investigate potential claims against a credit repair company. His fee agreement indicated that the claim could be individual or class action. In August 2004, Mr. Gendler filed a class action complaint against the company in U.S. District Court.

In 2006, Mr. Gendler discovered that the company was near bankruptcy and likely judgment proof. He negotiated a settlement on behalf of his client individually. The total settlement amount was $17,500. Mr. Gendler’s client agreed to the settlement; however, she wanted to resolve the amount of his fees afterward. Mr. Gendler offered to disburse $2,500 of the settlement to his client. The fee agreement Mr. Gendler drafted did not clearly explain the procedure for determining his fees in the case of individual settlement and indicated that his fees would be submitted to the court for approval. Mr. Gendler did not submit his fees to the court for approval.

Mr. Gendler’s conduct violated former RPC 1.5(b), requiring the lawyer to communicate to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation, the basis or rate of the fee or factors involved in determining the charges for legal services and the lawyer’s billing practices.

Kevin M. Bank represented the Bar Association. Mr. Gendler represented himself.

Non-Disciplinary Notices

Suspended Pending the Outcome of Supplemental Proceedings

Paul R. Lehto (WSBA No. 25103, admitted 1995), of Ishpeming, Michigan, was suspended pending the outcome of supplemental proceedings, pursuant to ELC 7.3, effective May 7, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary action.

Suspended Pending the Outcome of Disciplinary Proceedings

Bradley R. Marshall (WSBA No. 15830, admitted 1986), of Seattle, was suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to ELC 7.2(a)(2), effective May 1, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary action.