| Description: |
James W. Kovac (WSBA No. 11498, admitted 1981), of Lynnwood, received a reprimand based on a stipulation approved by a hearing officer on August 8, 2008. This discipline is based on conduct in two matters involving failure to act with reasonable diligence, failure to communicate, charging unreasonable fees, and failure to protect a client’s interests.
Matter No. 1: Ms. “H” hired Mr. Kovac in March 2004 to represent her minor son on possible charges of weapons possession. She paid Mr. Kovac $3,000, which she understood would be held until charges were filed against her son and, if charges were not filed, Mr. Kovac would refund the money. Although Mr. Kovac ordinarily used a written fee agreement in matters such as this that provided that his fees were a “nonrefundable retainer,” he did not execute a written fee agreement with Ms. H. Mr. Kovac contacted the police department and obtained copies of the police reports and other discovery. After speaking to the police officers involved, Mr. Kovac negotiated with the prosecution, resulting in no charges being filed against Ms. H’s son. Mr. Kovac did not immediately advise Ms. H or her son that charges were not filed against him regarding weapons possession. Mr. Kovac did not refund any of the $3,000 he received from Ms. H.
In October 2004, Ms. H’s son was charged with a DUI offense. She contacted Mr. Kovac, who agreed to represent her son in the DUI matter for $2,500, which Ms. H paid. At that time, Mr. Kovac also informed Ms. H that no charges were ever filed against her son in the gun matter. After receiving the $2,500, Mr. Kovac communicated directly with Ms. H’s son concerning his case and court dates. Mr. Kovac did not keep Ms. H fully informed about the status of her son’s DUI matter. Following an administrative hearing to contest the suspension of the son’s driver’s license resulting from being cited for DUI, notice of the son’s driver’s license suspension, as well as when and how he could reinstate his driving privileges, was mailed by the Department of Licensing directly to Ms. H’s son’s home address. Mr. Kovac did not immediately inform Ms. H or her son when the license was suspended, when the suspension period ended, or that her son could pay a fine and apply for reinstatement of his license.
In February 2005, Ms. H’s daughter was charged with a DUI offense. Ms. H paid an additional $2,500 to Mr. Kovac to represent her daughter on the DUI offense. Mr. Kovac communicated directly with Ms. H’s daughter concerning her case and court dates. Despite inquiries from Ms. H, Mr. Kovac did not keep Ms. H fully informed about the status of her daughter’s case.
In April 2005, Ms. H’s son was involved in a minor car accident and charged with driving without a license. Ms. H contacted Mr. Kovac concerning her son’s driving without a license charge. At that time, Mr. Kovac informed her of the suspension of her son’s license and of his failure to advise her that the suspension period had ended. Mr. Kovac agreed to represent her son without charge on the driving-without-a-license charge. He communicated directly with Ms. H’s son concerning his case and court dates; however, he did not keep Ms. H fully informed of the status of her son’s matter despite repeated requests from Ms. H. In July 2005, Mr. Kovac resolved the case by negotiating a plea to the reduced charge of negligent driving first-degree and Ms. H’s son was sentenced, thereby completing the case.
In August 2005, Mr. Kovac notified Ms. H that he had been suspended from the practice of law for nonpayment of dues because his check for licensing had bounced. He told her that he would arrange for other attorneys to cover her daughter's and son’s cases until he was reinstated. In September 2005, Ms. H’s daughter waited in court for approximately five hours regarding a hearing to consider an agreement Mr. Kovac negotiated to continue the DUI matter, but no attorney appeared for her. Mr. Kovac arranged for a public defender (Lawyer D) to continue the hearing, and a continuance was granted. After Mr. Kovac arranged for another attorney (Lawyer E) to appear on Ms. H’s daughter’s DUI case, Ms. H then hired Lawyer E, who completed her daughter’s case and followed up on Ms. H’s son’s case for $1,500. In October 2005, Mr. Kovac was reinstated to the practice of law. In January 2007, Mr. Kovac agreed to refund Ms. H the agreed sum of $4,500. He paid Ms. H $975 in April 2007, and an additional $4,000 in June 2008, which accounts for interest in the delay of paying the agreed sum of $4,500.
Matter No. 2: In August 2000, Mr. “P” was charged with a DUI offense. A defense motion for deferred prosecution was granted, subject to completion of various conditions, with probation review set for September 2005. In January 2005, Mr. P engaged Mr. Kovac to represent him in a subsequent proceeding related to his original offense, paying him $1,500. Mr. Kovac opened a file on Mr. P’s matter, but misplaced the file and never followed up with Mr. P. In August 2005, Mr. Kovac was suspended from the practice of law for nonpayment of dues. Mr. Kovac believes he sent the required notices of his suspension to all clients, but it appears that Mr. P did not get the notice that Mr. Kovac had been suspended from the practice of law. In September 2005, a review hearing was set in connection with an order for probation regarding Mr. P’s DUI matter. Mr. P telephoned Mr. Kovac’s office repeatedly, but Mr. Kovac did not respond to Mr. P’s calls. Mr. P hired another lawyer to complete the matter because Mr. Kovac did not respond to his telephone calls. In September 2006, Mr. Kovac sent a letter to Mr. P returning the $1,500 previously paid.
Mr. Kovac’s conduct violated former RPC 1.3, requiring that a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; former 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; former RPC 1.5(a), requiring a lawyer’s fee to be reasonable; and former RPC 1.15(d), requiring a lawyer to protect clients’ interests upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from representation.
Randy V. Beitel and Nancy Bickford Miller represented the Bar Association. Kurt M. Bulmer represented Mr. Kovac. Kelby D. Fletcher was the hearing officer. |