| Description: |
Bradley G. Behrman (WSBA No. 13420, admitted 1983), of Seattle, was suspended for nine months, effective December 24, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following an appeal. This discipline is based on conduct involving failure to act diligently, failure to communicate, trust-account irregularities, withdrawing funds from a trust account when the right of the lawyer to receive those funds is in dispute, and lack of cooperation in a disciplinary investigation. Conditions were imposed on reinstatement. For further information, see In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Behrman, __Wn.2d___, 197 P.3d 1177 (2008).
Mr. Behrman represented a client in business dealings related to a failed business (GTL) beginning in the summer of 2000. One of the legal matters Mr. Behrman handled was the assignment of GTL’s lease to a new tenant (PPL). Mr. Behrman completed most of the work associated with GTL by November 2002.
In November 2002, funds from the lease assignment were disbursed, leading to a billing dispute. Mr. Behrman asked for $2,500 to be retained from the disbursement for paying his fees. The parties dispute whether Mr. Behrman stated that his actual fees were higher or that $2,500 was the final payment. The client told Mr. Behrman that she did not want to release the $2,500 to him without a complete billing statement. They agreed to put the $2,500 in a trust account and release the remaining funds. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Behrman withdrew $500 from the trust account without notifying the client or obtaining her approval.
After the disbursement, Mr. Behrman’s only remaining task was to recover a debt from PPL, of which the client’s share was $2,922.31. After August 17, 2001, Mr. Behrman took no action to recover this debt, although he repeatedly promised to do so, and was informed several times that PPL appeared to be on the brink of bankruptcy. PPL eventually declared bankruptcy, making it unlikely the debt will ever be paid. Mr. Behrman acknowledges that if he had moved punctually, the debt would have almost certainly been collected. In February 2005, the client was able to exchange her interest in the PPL debt for a release from personal liability on the GTL lease.
After November 2002, Mr. Behrman failed to respond to numerous calls and e-mails from the client regarding his final billing statement and her legal claim against PPL. The few times Mr. Behrman did respond to the client’s e-mails or letters, he promised to provide the documents soon, but did not follow through. On July 22, 2004, the client terminated Mr. ¬Behrman’s representation and requested her files to be sent to her home address. Mr. ¬Behrman never sent the client her entire file and did not submit a final billing statement until the day before his disciplinary hearing.
Mr. Behrman failed to fully comply with the WSBA’s investigation. Twice he failed to bring some of the documents listed in the disciplinary counsel’s subpoena duces tecum, and he repeatedly failed to follow through on promises to produce those documents by a later date. He finally produced some additional files and a complete billing statement shortly before his disciplinary hearing, but he never produced the entire client file.
Mr. Behrman’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to 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, promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; former RPC 1.5(b), requiring a lawyer who has not regularly represented the client, or if the fee agreement is substantially different from that previously used by parties, to communicate to the client the basis or rate of the fee or factors involved in determining the charges for legal services and the lawyer’s billing practices, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation; former RPC 1.14 (current RPC 1.15A), prohibiting funds deposited in a trust account from being withdrawn when the right of the lawyer or law firm to receive them is in dispute, and requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to his or her client regarding them; 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(f)) in connection with a disciplinary matter.
Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Bradley G. Behrman represented himself. Gregory J. Wall was the hearing officer. |