June 2006

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.

Pursuant to Rule for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct 3.6(b), file materials relating to a matter concluded with an admonition may be destroyed five years after the admonition was issued. In admonition matters, it is the WSBA's policy to remove the disciplinary notice from the Washington State Bar News website archive five years after the admonition was issued, regardless of whether the WSBA's file materials are destroyed.

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

J. Rodney DeGeorge (WSBA No. 22931, admitted 1993), of Tacoma, was disbarred, effective January 30, 2006, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board. This discipline was based on his conduct in 11 matters.

Between 2001 and 2005, Mr. DeGeorge engaged in the following conduct that established grounds for discipline:

• Failing to file notices of appearance, motions for post-trial relief, a motion for a new trial, and a motion to withdraw a guilty plea (in some instances after having misrepresented to clients and others that such documents were already filed).

• Misrepresenting the outcome of a case to a client, and misrepresenting to several clients that he had taken certain action in their cases when those steps had not occurred.

• Collecting fees from clients and failing to perform any work on the cases or taking only minimal action.

• Retaining fees paid for work that was never performed.

• Failing to appear for trials and scheduled court hearings.

• Failing to communicate with clients and failing to respond to client requests for information.

• Failing to inform a judge that trial was set for the next day when obtaining an ex parte order sending his client for a competency evaluation.

• Making misrepresentations to a court about a client's eligibility for a Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative.

• Failing to respond to requests for information during the course of a disciplinary investigation, and failing to appear at depositions as required by subpoenas issued by disciplinary counsel.

• Making false statements and producing a backdated document in an effort to mislead Bar Association investigators.

• Failing to appear before the WSBA Board of Governors for the administration of a reprimand as required by ELC 13.4(a).

Mr. DeGeorge'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 regarding the representation; RPC 1.5(a), requiring a lawyer's fee to be reasonable; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; RPC 3.3(a)(1), prohibiting a lawyer from making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; RPC 3.3(f), requiring a lawyer in an ex parte proceeding to inform the tribunal of all relevant facts known to the lawyer that should be disclosed to permit the tribunal to make an informed decision; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; 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 in connection with a disciplinary matter.

Christine Gray represented the Bar Association. Mr. DeGeorge represented himself. Lawrence R. Mills was the hearing officer.

Disbarred

James L. White (WSBA No. 14132, admitted 1984), of Seattle, was disbarred, effective February 3, 2006, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2005 leading to his conviction of the crime of money laundering. James L. White is to be distinguished from James A.D. White of Seattle and James J. White of Vashon.

Mr. White was visited in his law office by a client who delivered to him a backpack containing approximately $100,000 in cash, packaged in bundles and held together by rubber bands. The currency was to be used in connection with the representation of the client. Mr. White was aware that the currency constituted proceeds derived from a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Depositing the money into a bank account would have triggered the provisions of 31 U.S.C. § 5313, a federal currency reporting requirement that requires a bank to file a report for cash deposits in excess of $10,000. In order to avoid the filing requirement, and to disguise the nature and source of the funds, Mr. White took the backpack containing the cash to his residence, where he kept it hidden. Thereafter, he expended the money in a variety of ways intended to further conceal and disguise the criminally derived nature and source of the funds, including delivering $20,000 in cash to another lawyer as a fee for that lawyer's representation of a co-conspirator in the client's case. Mr. White did not maintain records of receipt or expenditures of the funds.

In July 2005, Mr. White pleaded guilty in federal district court to one count of money laundering, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(b)(i) and (ii).

Mr. White's conduct violated 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; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and 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 that reflects disregard for the rule of law, whether the same be committed in the course of his or her conduct as a lawyer, or otherwise, and whether the same constitutes a felony or misdemeanor or not.

Christine Gray represented the Bar Association. David Allen represented Mr. White.

Suspended

Andrew Mankowski (WSBA No. 22999, admitted 1993) of Phoenix, Arizona, was suspended for six months and a day, effective September 29, 2005, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline in accordance with an order of the Supreme Court of Arizona. This discipline was based on his conduct between 2002 and 2004 in 10 client matters and his failure to cooperate with the State Bar of Arizona's disciplinary investigations.

Between January 2002 and March 2004, Mr. Mankowski engaged in the following conduct that established grounds for discipline:

• Failing to respond to clients' calls, failing to keep scheduled appointments with clients, and failing to keep clients informed about the status of their cases.

• Failing to provide a client with new contact information after leaving the law firm where he was employed.

• Failing to reasonably expedite litigation and misplacing documents from a client file.

• Failing to reschedule a hearing upon request of a client, failing to inform the client of rescheduled hearing dates, and failing to attend scheduled hearings.

• Failing to submit a response to a court order requesting a written explanation as to why he did not appear at a scheduled hearing, and failing to respond to a court order and the State Bar of Arizona's request requiring a written response to a client's petition seeking to compel his withdrawal from the client's case.

• Failing to attend scheduled depositions and independent medical examinations.

• Failing to respond to written discovery requests, telephone calls from defense counsel, and multiple motions to compel discovery, and failure to comply with resulting discovery orders.

• Falsely informing clients that papers had been filed and served when they had not, failing to file paperwork, and failing to serve a protective order.

• Failing to file a divorce decree as ordered by the court and, once the decree was filed, failing to respond to the client's request to correct multiple errors in the decree.

• Failing to perform any work in a case.

• Refusing to withdraw from cases after clients had fired him.

• Failing to return client files and property upon request of the clients after termination of the representation.

• Failing to refund unused portions of fees or render accountings upon client request after termination of the representation.

• Failing to respond to letters and requests from the State Bar of Arizona during the screening of client grievances and during ensuing disciplinary investigations.

Mr. Mankowski's conduct violated ER 1.2 of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, requiring a lawyer to abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and to consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued; ER 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; ER 1.4, requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; ER 1.5, requiring that a lawyer's fee be reasonable; ER 1.16, requiring that a lawyer withdraw from the representation of a client if the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law, if the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client, or if the lawyer is discharged, and requiring a lawyer to protect a client's interest on termination of representation; ER 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; ER 3.3(a)(1), prohibiting a lawyer from making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; ER 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; ER 4.1, prohibiting a lawyer from making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; ER 4.4, prohibiting a lawyer in the representation of a client from using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third party; ER 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; ER 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation; 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; Rule 53(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona (Ariz. R. S. Ct.), prohibiting a lawyer from willful violation of any rule or any court order; Ariz. R. S. Ct. 53(d), prohibiting a lawyer from evading service or refusing to cooperate with officials and staff of the state bar acting in the course of such a person's duties; and Ariz. R. S. Ct. 53(f), prohibiting a lawyer from failing to furnish information to or respond promptly to any inquiry or request from bar counsel for information relevant to complaints.

Felice P. Congalton represented the Bar Association. Mr. Mankowski was not represented by counsel.

Suspended

Hamersley S. Wright (WSBA No. 4989, admitted 1973), of Clinton, was suspended for three months, effective February 3, 2006, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board. This discipline was based on his conduct between 1996 and 2001 involving failure to diligently conclude a probate matter, failure to communicate with a client, and failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation.

In April 1996, Mr. Wright was hired to probate the estate of a Washington resident who had died intestate in 1994. The sole beneficiary of the estate was the decedent's mother. In September 1996, Mr. Wright filed a petition for administration and was appointed personal representative. Over the next nine months, Mr. Wright filed the appropriate pleadings, resolved two creditors' claims, and filed an inventory. In October 1996, the IRS sent the estate a deficiency notice for the tax year 1992, assessing the decedent $7,939.41 in estimated taxes plus accrued interest and penalties. Although the estate had sufficient assets to pay the IRS assessment, Mr. Wright did not pay or resolve the tax deficiency. In August 1998, Mr. Wright asked an accountant to prepare the decedent's 1992 tax return. In October 1998, the IRS's automated collection system notified Mr. Wright that the amount due and owing for the decedent's 1992 income taxes was $8,244.76, plus $2,112.91 in interest and penalties. At that point, the estate had sufficient assets to pay the IRS deficiency, with interest and penalties. Mr. Wright filed the 1992 tax return and enclosed a trust account check for $3,808, the accountant's estimate of taxes owed for 1992. In March 1999, the IRS sent to Mr. Wright a notice that it had adjusted the estate's gross income, taxable income, and penalty charge, and that the estate owed an additional $4,886.21 in taxes, interest, and penalties. The IRS requested payment by April 1, 1999. Mr. Wright did not pay the tax deficiency.

In August 2000, the estate beneficiary filed a grievance, in which she alleged that probate was still open, that certified mail she sent to Mr. Wright had been returned unclaimed, and that Mr. Wright would not return her phone calls. Mr. Wright did not respond to the Bar Association's request for a response to the grievance. After the Bar Association served Mr. Wright with a subpoena for a noncooperation deposition, he admitted to disciplinary counsel that the estate beneficiary had some legitimate complaints and that he had been lax in completing probate. Shortly after the deposition, Mr. Wright sent a letter to the court requesting that the probate proceedings be kept open for an additional 60 days. Mr. Wright also wrote to the beneficiary advising her about the IRS dispute and recommending that she authorize him to pay $4,000 to the IRS so that he could close the estate. Mr. Wright did not subsequently pay the $4,000 or close the estate. In March 2001, he advised the estate beneficiary that he was retiring from the practice of law. Mr. Wright hired another lawyer to conclude the probate while Mr. Wright remained the personal representative. Mr. Wright transferred the $2,085 of estate funds remaining in his trust account to the new lawyer, intending that it be used to pay the tax deficiency. The balance of the estate's assets remains held in a brokerage account. Over the following several years, the new lawyer charged the estate at least $2,085 in legal fees but did not resolve the tax issue or conclude probating the estate.

Mr. Wright's conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to 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 promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; RPC 1.4(b), requiring a lawyer to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; and ELC 5.3(e), requiring a lawyer to promptly respond to any inquiry or request made under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct for information relevant to grievances or matters under investigation.

Leslie C. Allen represented the Bar Association. Mr. Wright represented himself.

Non-Disciplinary Notice

Suspended Pending Outcome of Disciplinary Proceedings

Jonny Ludington-Green, aka Jonny Lee Morales (WSBA No. 18552, admitted 1989), of San Diego, California, was suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to ELC 7.1, effective April 5, 2006, by an order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary action.