|
|
|
 |  |
 |
 |
WSBA Info | |
|
For Lawyers | |
|
For the Public |  |
 |
For the Media |  |
|
CLE |  |
| | Bench Bar Guidelines | News Releases | Publications | |
|
|
July 2007These 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. Disbarred Michael O. Riley (WSBA No. 21452, admitted 1992) of Tukwila, was disbarred, effective January 17, 2007, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2004 and 2005 in three matters involving lack of diligence, failure to communicate with clients, unreasonable fees, trust account irregularities, failure to refund unearned fees and return property to a client, commission of a criminal act, dishonesty, and non-cooperation with disciplinary investigations. Matter 1: Mr. Riley was hired to represent a client in a dissolution matter. When the case was resolved, Mr. Riley and the client agreed that Mr. Riley would receive $4,000 from the proceeds to cover unpaid attorney’s fees and fees for possible future representation in connection with post-dissolution motions. In July 2004, Mr. Riley received two checks from the counsel for the opposing party. One check was payable to Mr. Riley for $4,000 and the other, for the balance of the proceeds, was payable to the client. Although he had only earned at most $2,916.65, Mr. Riley deposited the entire $4,000 into his business account. After July 2004, Mr. Riley did not earn any fees from the client or expend any funds on her behalf. The client terminated Mr. Riley’s services and requested a refund of the balance of her funds. Mr. Riley did not refund any money to her. At the end of July 2004, Mr. Riley was suspended from the practice of law for nonpayment of dues. He did not notify the client of his suspension or respond to numerous messages left by the client in August and September. In October 2004, Mr. Riley told the client that a refund of $1,093.35 would be available at the beginning of November. In November 2004, the client filed a grievance with the Bar Association. Mr. Riley intentionally did not provide the client with her funds until February 2005. Matter 2: In March 2004, a client hired Mr. Riley regarding a contractor’s lien on the client’s property. Although Mr. Riley advised the client that the problem would be resolved by July, Mr. Riley neither performed any work that benefited the client nor responded to numerous requests for information on the status of the matter. Mr. Riley also did not inform the client in writing of his July 2004 suspension. During the summer of 2004, the client went to Mr. Riley’s office four times to determine the status of his matter. Mr. Riley was present only on one of those four occasions and informed the client that he could not talk to him because his license had temporarily been suspended. Matter 3: In February 2005, a Texas resident hired Mr. Riley to handle a probate matter. The client’s father had died the previous year. The client was named as personal representative in the will. Mr. Riley agreed to handle the probate matter for $2,000, and he sent the client a fee agreement describing the $2,000 as a “fully earned fee.” The client signed the fee agreement and sent it back to Mr. Riley with a check for $2,000, together with the original will. Even though he had not earned any of the funds, Mr. Riley deposited the $2,000 into his business account. Mr. Riley did not perform any work on behalf of the estate and did not respond to the client’s numerous attempts to contact him by phone, fax, e-mail, and letter. In September 2005, the client sent a certified letter requesting that Mr. Riley return the original will and the fee if he was unable to handle the matter. Mr. Riley did not respond. In October 2005, the client filed a grievance against Mr. Riley with the Bar Association. In the three above-described matters, Mr. Riley failed to cooperate with the Bar Association by not providing requested information and documents, by not responding to requests for responses to grievances, by not appearing at a scheduled deposition, and by not producing documents as required by subpoena. During the disciplinary investigation, it was determined that between at least August 2003 and November 2005, Mr. Riley maintained an IOLTA account for which he did not maintain complete records. During that period, Mr. Riley did not record or accurately record 63 trust account transactions, including at least $107,607 of withdrawals. Many of these withdrawals were payable to Mr. Riley or were used to pay for his personal or business expenses. After August 2003, Mr. Riley did not reconcile his trust account records to his bank statement and did not maintain client ledgers for his trust account. Mr. Riley’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring that a lawyer 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 1.5(a), requiring a lawyer’s fee to be reasonable; former RPC 1.14(a), requiring all funds paid to a lawyer or law firm, including advances for costs and expenses, be deposited in one or more identifiable interest-bearing trust accounts, and no funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm be deposited therein; former RPC 1.14(b)(4), requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by the client the funds, securities, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive; RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting a lawyer from committing a criminal act (here, theft) that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(i), prohibiting a lawyer from committing any act involving moral turpitude, or corruption, or any unjustified act of assault or other act which reflects disregard for the rule of law; 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) and 14.1(c)) in connection with a disciplinary matter. Anne I. Seidel represented the Bar Association. Mr. Riley did not appear either in person or through counsel. Lyle O. Hanson was the hearing officer. Suspended Michael M. Pacheco (WSBA No. 31209, admitted 2001), of Salem, Oregon, was suspended for four years, effective February 8, 2007, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline in accordance with an order of the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon following approval of a stipulation. This discipline was based on his conduct between 2003 and 2005 involving conduct that would prejudice admission to the bar; conviction of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; knowingly making a false statement of law or fact to a tribunal; criminal conduct reflecting adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer; and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. For more information, see Oregon State Bar Bulletin, Discipline (January 2007), available at www.osbar.org/-publications/bulletin/07jan/-discipline.html. Mr. Pacheco’s conduct violated Oregon ORS 9.527(1), authorizing discipline whenever it appears to the court that the member has committed an act or carried on a course of conduct of such nature that, if the member were applying for admission to the bar, the application should be denied; Oregon ORS 9.527(2), authorizing discipline when a member has been convicted in any jurisdiction of an offense which is a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a felony under the laws of Oregon, or is punishable by death or imprisonment under the laws of the United States; Oregon RPC 3.3(a)(1), prohibiting a lawyer from making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or failing to correct a false statement of material fact or law made to a tribunal by the lawyer; Oregon RPC 8.4(a)(2), prohibiting commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; and Oregon 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. Pacheco represented himself. Admonished John R. Scannell (WSBA No. 31035, admitted 2001), of Seattle, was admonished following a hearing. The admonition was based on his conduct in 2002 involving failure to exercise adequate supervisory authority over a nonlawyer assistant. In April 2002, Mr. Scannell began representing the plaintiff in a lawsuit pending in federal district court. At that time, Mr. Scannell hired a paralegal on an independent contractor basis. In October 2002, when the plaintiff’s judgment became final, the court granted the defendant leave to deposit the judgment amount of $1,194.05 into the court registry. Shortly thereafter, without Mr. Scannell’s knowledge or authorization, Mr. Scannell’s paralegal prepared and filed two documents: (1) a motion seeking release of the funds deposited in the court registry and (2) a full satisfaction of judgment. The paralegal had affixed a facsimile of Mr. Scannell’s signature on each document by using a signature stamp. In November 2002, after reviewing the court file and discovering the two documents, Mr. Scannell filed a handwritten request that the court not act on the October motion because it was not filed under his authority and was signed with a stamp that he had “never seen nor authorized.” The court denied the motion for release of the funds and ordered Mr. Scannell to show cause as to the events pertaining to the stamped pleadings. In December 2002, Mr. Scannell filed a response to the order. In a supporting declaration, Mr. Scannell stated that the paralegal believed he had authority to sign for what he thought was a routine transaction and had affixed the signature stamp to speed things up. Mr. Scannell explained that he had a busy caseload and was unavailable for signatures during the time period in question. Mr. Scannell further stated that he had subsequently warned the paralegal never to sign pleadings in the future without authorization. In December 2002, the court issued an order releasing the funds in the court registry to Mr. Scannell and his client, in trust, provided that Mr. Scannell submitted a properly signed satisfaction of judgment. The court’s order also noted that Mr. Scannell’s response to the show cause order did not address “who made the stamp and directed that it be used, even for ‘routine’ matters.” The court also expressed concern about whether Mr. Scannell was exercising control over certain aspects of his legal practice. Mr. Scannell does not know when or where the signature stamp was made, nor did he discover any other pleadings or correspondence that had been approved with the signature stamp. Mr. Scannell’s conduct violated 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; and RPC 5.3(b), requiring a lawyer with direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer. Scott G. Busby represented the Bar Association. Mr. Scannell represented himself. Andrekita Silva was the hearing officer. Admonished Jo Nell Walker (WSBA No. 24526, admitted 1994), of Vancouver, Washington, received two admonitions following a stipulation approved by a hearing officer. This discipline was based on her conduct in two matters involving lack of diligence and failure to communicate with a client. Matter 1: Ms. Walker represented a client in a dissolution matter. In 1999, the client and her husband entered into a settlement agreement. Ms. Walker did not enter final orders to effectuate the settlement. The client wrote to Ms. Walker several times about getting the final orders entered, but the orders were never entered. Another lawyer took over the client’s representation in March 2002. At about that time, the client received notification that the family home — which had been awarded to her husband in the settlement — was going into foreclosure. As part of the settlement, the client had been awarded a promissory note and deed of trust against the property to secure payment of monies owed to her as part of the property distribution. As a result of Ms. Walker’s failure to enter final orders, the client’s interest in the marital estate was unsecured. Eventually, the home was sold at a trustee’s sale to third parties. The husband’s father repurchased the home for his son using life insurance proceeds that the client maintained were community assets. The client was eventually given the house as part of the settlement, but the client paid additional money to have her new lawyer complete the representation. Matter 2: From June to August 2005, Ms. Walker represented a client in a dissolution matter. During this time, Ms. Walker did not promptly return her client’s calls. Ms. Walker did not explain to the client that, owing to a busy trial schedule, she would not be able to attend to the case as quickly as the client had requested. Soon after hiring Ms. Walker, the client asked her to obtain a temporary order of child support. Ms. Walker never did so, despite repeated requests. The client’s husband stopped paying support or making the mortgage payments for the marital home in which the client and her children were living. The client had no recourse because there were no temporary orders in place. This created a financial hardship for the client. Ms. Walker’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; and 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. Francesca D’Angelo represented the Bar Association. Ms. Walker represented herself. Non-Disciplinary Notices Suspended Pending Outcome of Disciplinary Proceedings Jack L. Burtch (WSBA No. 4161, admitted 1955), of Aberdeen, was suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to ELC 7.2, effective May 17, 2007, by an order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary action. Suspended Pending Outcome of Disciplinary Proceedings Lynn M. Abreu (WSBA No. 14241, admitted 1984), of Renton, was suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to ELC 7.2, effective March 15, 2007, by an order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary action.
|
