| Description: |
Roland O. Foster Balloun (WSBA No. 20884, admitted 1991) has been disbarred, following a hearing, by order of the Supreme Court, effective May 27, 1999. The discipline is based upon multiple acts of misconduct involving litigation matters.
Matter 1. In 1992, Mr. Balloun filed a complaint on behalf of his client, Skilcraft Fiberglass Inc., regarding a contract a dispute with Hermanson Corporation and a mechanic’s lien foreclosure action against the Boeing Company. Mr. Balloun notified Hermanson’s counsel that he would move for default against all defendants unless Hermanson filed a release of lien bond. On this same day, Hermanson filed a release of lien bond for twice the disputed value. This bond released Boeing’s real property from any lien claim. Hermanson’s counsel requested that Mr. Balloun dismiss Boeing from the suit. Mr. Balloun told Herman-son’s counsel that he believed he had no choice other than to drop Boeing from the lawsuit. Later, Mr. Balloun discovered what he decided were intentional errors in Hermanson’s bond. Mr. Balloun obtained an ex parte default judgment against Boeing, without providing notice to Hermanson. Although both Herman-son and Boeing requested that Mr. Balloun agree to vacate the default, he refused. The court vacated the judgment and awarded $22,047.99 in CR 11 sanctions against Balloun and his client. Mr. Balloun appealed the judgment. The Court of Appeals, finding the appeal frivolous, awarded $7,337 in attorney’s fees. Mr. Balloun has not paid any of the sanctions or attorney’s fees awards.
Matter 2. In April 1992, Mr. Balloun agreed to represent two minority shareholders of a small company in a dispute with the majority shareholder. On Mr. Balloun’s advice, his clients called an emergency Board of Directors meeting ousting the majority shareholder, without giving the statutorily required notice to the majority shareholder.
On April 9, 1992, the majority share-holder’s wife filed a petition for dissolution of their marriage. Mr. Balloun submitted a pleading in the dissolution case falsely declaring that he had been retained by a majority of the company stockholders. At about this time, Mr. Balloun began a sexual relationship with the wife. The majority shareholder filed a lawsuit, and the court granted a restraining order against the company, preventing any action implementing the decisions made at the earlier board meeting. Mr. Balloun wrote to the majority shareholders’ counsel stating that the majority shareholder was only entitled to vote one half of his shares and that the wife was entitled to vote the remaining half. The lawyer objected and advised Mr. Balloun that the majority shareholder had terminated him as corporate counsel. On that same day, Mr. Balloun filed a notice of appearance as counsel for the company. Later, at a special shareholders meeting, with the majority shareholder only allowed to vote one half of his shares, the shareholders voted to remove the majority shareholder, install the wife as president, and retain Mr. Balloun as counsel.
The company settled the lawsuit for $20,000. The clients wanted to use the company’s $9,000 previously deposited into Mr. Balloun’s trust account to make the final settlement payment. Mr. Balloun told the clients that he had disbursed the $9,000 to himself to pay attorney’s fees for the company and for the minority shareholders personally. After Mr. Balloun’s resignation as counsel, the company received a writ of garnishment for the remaining settlement funds. Mr. Balloun advised the clients that they did not have to respond to the garnishment because it was served after the day he resigned. The court granted a default judgment against the company for $10,000. During this same time period, Mr. Balloun substituted as attorney for the wife in the dissolution, and then made a formal demand against the company on her behalf. Mr. Balloun did not seek or receive the company’s agreement to represent the wife, and used information obtained during his representation of the company against the company in his representation of the wife.
Matter 3. In February 1993, Mr. Balloun agreed to perform 40 hours of legal work per month for a client, in exchange for use of furnished office space owned by the client. The employment agreement stated that all files, correspondence, pleadings and attorney work product would remain on the client’s property and be readily available to the client. Later, the client terminated Mr. Balloun’s representation, gave him a notice to vacate the property, and asked that he immediately return all files, except one. Mr. Balloun indicated that he would return all files that week. Several months later, while responding to a lawsuit, the client’s new lawyer was unable to locate several documents that should have been in the client’s legal files. Mr. Balloun filed a declaration with the court stating that he had returned "virtually all files," except duplicated copies and work product to his former client. The court ordered Mr. Balloun to return all non-privileged files and arrange for an in-camera review of privileged files. Mr. Balloun then turned over 24 files, consisting of about 1,300 non-privileged documents, including stock certificates, birth certificates and promissory notes. After the court issued an order to show cause, Mr. Balloun produced the alleged privileged documents, including pleadings, letters and handwritten notes relevant to the parties’ intent in the lawsuit.
During the investigation of these cases, Mr. Balloun failed to respond to requests for response and failed to provide subpoenaed documents.
Mr. Balloun’s conduct violated RPCs 3.3 (f), candor toward the tribunal; 3.4(c), fairness to opposing counsel; 4.4, respect for rights of third persons; 8.4(c), conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; 8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; 1.15, withdrawal; 1.1, competence; 1.14(b)(4), trust accounting rules; 1.7(b), conflict of interest; 1.9(a) and (b), conflict of interest-former client; and 2.8(a), non-cooperation.
Mr. Balloun represented himself. Bernadette Janét and Douglas Ende represented the Bar Association. The hearing officer was Lawrence Mills.
|