| Description: |
Charles E. Marunde (WSBA No. 16036, admitted 1986), of Port Angeles, was suspended for six months, effective September 10, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline is based on conduct in two matters involving failure to act with reasonable diligence, lack of communication, charging unreasonable fees, failure to terminate representation when a mental condition impaired his ability to represent the client, failure to protect a client's interests, failure to expedite litigation, and violation of the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct.
Matter No. 1: In May 2006, "Mr. and Mrs. H" hired Mr. Marunde to file a lawsuit on their behalf alleging misrepresentation in the purchase of residential real estate. Mr. and Mrs. H paid Mr. Marunde $2,500. Mr. Marunde filed the lawsuit, and a trial was set for December 7, 2006. Mr. Marunde failed to advise Mr. and Mrs. H that the case was set for trial or of the trial date. He failed to advise Mr. and Mrs. H of developments in the litigation, including that they had been countersued. Mr. Marunde failed to provide Mr. and Mrs. H timely notice of the discovery requests being made of them, failed to comply with the case scheduling order, and failed to comply with the defendants' requests for discovery. On or about November 8, 2006, Mr. Marunde advised Mr. and Mrs. H that he would withdraw from their case due to emotional problems. He did not withdraw from the case. On November 15, 2006, defense counsel filed a motion to exclude evidence based on Mr. Marunde's failure to comply with discovery. The motion was set to be heard on December 1, 2006, one week before the scheduled trial. Mr. Marunde failed to advise Mr. and Mrs. H of the motion.
In late November 2006, Mr. H contacted another lawyer (Lawyer B) about representing them. Mr. and Mrs. H retrieved their file from Mr. Marunde and learned for the first time about the trial date and pending motion. On December 1, 2006, Lawyer B moved to continue the trial date and presented a declaration from Mr. Marunde in which he stated that he had been unable to attend to Mr. and Mrs. H's case because of emotional problems. The court denied the defendants' motion in limine without prejudice, granted the motion to continue conditioned on the payment of sanctions, and issued a new case scheduling order. The parties agreed to sanctions in the amount of $1,500, thereby obviating the need for another hearing, and Mr. and Mrs. H paid the sanctions.
Matter No. 2: In December 2005, a married couple (Mr. and Mrs. S) hired Mr. Marunde to represent them in an action against their neighbors. They paid Mr. Marunde $5,000. There was no written fee agreement. In January 2006, Mr. Marunde filed a complaint on Mr. and Mrs. S's behalf. He did some work on their legal matter over the next two months, then stopped work on the case. Mr. S called Mr. Marunde repeatedly about the status of the case, but Mr. Marunde failed to return his calls. In July 2006, Mr. S went unannounced to Mr. Marunde's home. Mr. Marunde told him he was experiencing personal problems and was depressed. As a result of his problems and resulting inability to handle his cases, Mr. Marunde asked a non-lawyer friend to act as an intermediary between him and some of his clients. Through the friend, Mr. S sought information from Mr. Marunde about his case and demanded a refund of his fees. Mr. Marunde has not refunded any fees to Mr. S.
In March 2007, Mr. S hired another lawyer (Lawyer C) and paid him $3,000. The trial was set for early 2008. Mr. S filed a grievance against Mr. Marunde with the Bar Association. In April 2007, disciplinary counsel asked Mr. Marunde to provide a written response to the grievance. Between May and June 2007, the Association sent three additional letters requesting his response to the grievance. Mr. Marunde failed to file a written response. In August 2007, an investigator with the Bar Association interviewed Mr. Marunde about the grievance. Mr. Marunde agreed to provide the Bar Association with his billing statements and copies of documents, which he stored on his computer. In November 2007, after disciplinary counsel sent Mr. Marunde the analysis letter in this case recommending a hearing, Mr. Marunde provided information and documents in response to the grievance.
Mr. Marunde'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 to 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; RPC 1.5(a), prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses; RPC 1.16(a)(2), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; RPC 1.16(d), requiring a lawyer, upon termination of representation, to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; 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)].
Joanne S. Abelson represented the Bar Association. Mr. Marunde represented himself. William S. Bailey was the hearing officer. |