| Description: |
Barbara E. Varon (WSBA No. 17041, admitted 1987), of Bellevue, received a reprimand based on a stipulation approved by a hearing officer on August 6, 2008. This discipline is based on conduct involving failure to obtain a client’s consent regarding limiting her representation, lack of communication, and failure to confirm a client’s termination of services prior to withdrawal of representation.
In December 2004, Ms. Varon was hired by a client to represent her in a dissolution proceeding. The dissolution was contested and the client felt she needed an aggressive, experienced lawyer. Ms. Varon’s telephone book advertisement stated that she was aggressive; specialized in dissolutions, both contested and uncontested; and had 19 years’ experience. The client relied on those representations in hiring Ms. Varon.
On June 14, 2005, a settlement conference took place. No settlement was reached and the case was scheduled to go to trial on August 29, 2005. Immediately after the settlement conference, Ms. Varon telephoned a friend of the client with whom Ms. Varon was authorized to communicate about the case. Ms. Varon informed the client’s friend that no settlement had been reached and the client’s case was therefore likely to go to trial. Ms. Varon told the client’s friend that she had limited dissolution trial experience and that she was going to withdraw from the case. Ms. Varon asked the client’s friend to communicate this information to the client.
On or about June 15 and 16, 2005, the client telephoned Ms. Varon three times and left messages to return her calls. Ms. Varon did not return the client’s telephone calls. Based on what Ms. Varon perceived to be the hostile nature of the client’s telephone messages, Ms. Varon formed the belief that the attorney-client relationship had broken down.
On or about June 20, 2005, Ms. Varon received a letter faxed from the client expressing her dissatisfaction with Ms. Varon’s representation and asking for her money back. However, the letter did not specifically state that she was terminating Ms. Varon’s services or ask Ms. Varon to no longer represent her. Over the course of the representation, the client had paid Ms. Varon approximately $13,000 in attorney’s fees. In response to the client’s letter, Ms. Varon faxed a letter to the client advising the client that she needed “an experienced trial attorney” and that she does “not feel as qualified as an attorney who routinely does trials.” Included with the letter to the client was Ms. Varon’s Notice of Intent to Withdraw, effective July 5, 2005, approximately six weeks before the trial date. Opposing counsel filed objections to Ms. Varon’s withdrawal, based on the need to protect discovery that had been provided to her. In response, Ms. Varon filed a Motion and Declaration for Order Permitting Withdrawal that stated the client had discontinued her services and that Ms. Varon was withdrawing at the client’s request. On July 25, 2005, Ms. Varon’s motion to withdraw was granted.
Ms. Varon’s conduct violated RPC 1.2(c), allowing a lawyer to limit the scope of her representation if the limitation is reasonable and the client consents after consultation; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; and former 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.
Debra J. Slater represented the Bar Association. Steven R. Loitz represented Ms. Varon. Sidney Stillerman Royer was the hearing officer. |