| Description: |
Will Knedlik (WSBA No. 2382, admitted 1974), of Kirkland, has been disbarred following a hearing, by order of the Supreme Court, effective January 21, 2000. The discipline is based upon his bringing several frivolous claims, contacting represented parties directly, using litigation to embarrass, delay or burden third parties, and failing to diligently represent a client. For a more complete description of this matter, please read the Hearing Officer’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Matter 1: On August 26, 1993 and August 30, 1993, Mr. Knedlik sent letters directly to two officers of the Together Development Corporation (TDC). These letters threatened to shut down TDC’s Canadian and UK operations if Mr. Knedlik did not receive payment for his client’s alleged copyright infringement. Mr. Knedlik knew TDC was represented by counsel, because he had been previously involved in litigation with TDC and had talked to counsel about copyright issues. In September 1993,TDC obtained an injunction prohibiting Mr. Knedlik from contacting any TDC officers or franchisees except through counsel. Mr. Knedlik disregarded the injunction. His conduct in contacting the officers of TDC Corporation directly, when he knew they were represented by counsel, violated RPC 4.2.
TDC was a corporation selling franchised dating services. During 1993, Mr. Knedlik filed two lawsuits against TDC on behalf of two franchisees. Mr. Knedlik filed both of these suits after one franchisee told Mr. Knedlik that he felt responsible for the other franchisee’s problems, because he had talked to her before she signed the contract. Any discussion with the franchisees about potential conflicts of interest occurred only after Mr. Knedlik was disqualified by the Court.
Mr. Knedlik also represented a client operating a dating service business competing with TDC. The competitor claimed TDC had stolen its system for screening applicants. Because the TDC franchisees were the ones using the screening system, the competitor’s claims were also against the TDC franchisees. Mr. Knedlik formed four Washington non-profit corporations and used these to file the competitor’s and one franchisee’s claims against TDC. Mr. Knedlik did not discuss the conflicts between the competitor and the franchisees with his clients. Mr. Knedlik also started his own lawsuit against TDC, alleging that they had tortiously interfered with his ability to represent his clients. By the end of 1993, Mr. Knedlik was involved in four Federal District Court cases against TDC.
In 1994, TDC requested, and the Court granted, a motion disqualifying Mr. Knedlik from continuing to be involved in any of these cases except his own, based on the conflicts of interest. Mr. Knedlik moved for reconsideration of this order, claiming that the for-profit corporations had purchased all of the claims against TDC. The Court stated: "the agreement demonstrates how Knedlik’s own interests in (1) being able to represent [the corporation], and (2) bolstering his potential contingency fee by the assignment of [the two franchisees] claims to [the corporation], clearly are in conflict with those of [the two franchisees], who as a result of the assignment no longer have any legal claims against TDC." Eventually, the cases against TDC were dismissed, with judgments entered against one of the franchisees and the for-profit corporations. Mr. Knedlik drafted pro se appeals of the dismissals, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed them. Mr. Knedlik’s conduct in representing many parties involving multiple conflicts of interest without obtaining the clients’ written consent violated RPC 1.7.
After TDC moved for Mr. Knedlik’s disqualification, but before the court entered the order, Mr. Knedlik signed at least 14 additional complaints against TDC and filed two complicated motions in the ongoing litigation. TDC filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending determination of the disqualification motion. During the hearing on the motion to disqualify, Mr. Knedlik told the judge that he had approximately 40 additional complaints to file. By this time, Mr. Knedlik had commenced 22 lawsuits against TDC or related entities in state court in Washington. Many of these suits named individual officers, employees, and lawyers who represented TDC and employees of companies that did business with TDC. One complaint was 300 pages long and was resolved when TDC told the Court that the case had previously been removed to, and dismissed by, the federal court.
In May 1994, the Court prohibited Mr. Knedlik from filing any additional actions against TDC without leave of court. Mr. Knedlik continued to sign lawsuits, naming the officers and other TDC entities, without naming TDC directly. In October 1994, the Court issued a fifth injunction against Mr. Knedlik and recommended that he be found in civil contempt for continuing to have direct contact with TDC franchisees after several injunctions. In April 1995, the federal court imposed FRCP 11 sanctions of $10,297.08 on Mr. Knedlik, based on filing unwarranted and unsupported motions. In this same month, the Court held Mr. Knedlik in contempt for commencing litigation against TDC without using its name, and later imposed a $ 9,245.55 civil contempt award and $69,881.02 in attorney’s fees against Mr. Knedlik personally. The contempt award has not been paid.
The Court also entered a permanent injunction against Mr. Knedlik to prevent harassment of TDC. Mr. Knedlik’s conduct in continuing to sign lawsuits against TDC and file complicated meritless motions in the ongoing TDC cases while the motion to disqualify him was pending, and his actions resulting in FRCP 11 sanctions and a contempt of court citation, violated RPC 3.1, by bringing proceedings and controverting issues with no basis for doing so; and RPC 4.4, using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden third persons.
Mr. Knedlik’s conduct in commencing litigation against TDC officers and related entities, without naming TDC directly while under court order not to commence any new cases without leave of court, violated RPC 3.5(c), prohibiting conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal; and RPC 8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
On May 16, 1994, Mr. Knedlik notified TDC by letter that he intended to attend the national TDC franchisee meeting. The Court entered an order enjoining Mr. Knedlik from attending the meeting. Later, Mr. Knedlik did appear, unannounced, at a different TDC franchisee meeting in Virginia. While in Virginia for the meeting, Mr. Knedlik swore out a criminal complaint against an officer of TDC, alleging that the officer assaulted him and broke a front tooth out of his mouth. The TDC officer was arrested and the case set for trial. Mr. Knedlik did not appear for trial. Later, Mr. Knedlik testified that he broke his tooth playing tennis and that someone prevented the TDC officer from hitting him. Mr. Knedlik’s conduct in appearing at the national TDC meeting and swearing out a criminal complaint and then not appearing for trial violated RPC 4.4.
Matter 2: Mr. Knedlik represented a ballet teacher, his ballet school and related nonprofit performing dance group. An adult ballet student loaned the teacher money for the business. In September 1995, the teacher assaulted the adult student, who filed a criminal complaint. Mr. Knedlik contacted the adult student at her new employer, explained he was sorry about what happened, and said he wanted to help her get her money back from the teacher. Later, Mr. Knedlik sent a "Memorandum of Understanding" to the adult student at her workplace. The student rejected the memorandum because it contained the same terms as the promissory notes the teacher had previously signed. The memorandum also stated that the student would not make any adverse comment about the teacher. The student worried that this might interfere with the pending criminal matter. At Mr. Knedlik’s request, the student faxed him copies of the promissory notes. Although the teacher was asked not to be involved, the parents and board members of the dance group continued fundraising, and the group performed as scheduled in Federal Way, using a new name and new choreography. Mr. Knedlik served a lawsuit naming the ballet company and dance group as plaintiff and the adult student, her employer, and other parents as defendants. Mr. Knedlik alleged that the defendants had started a "rival ballet studio," and that together they constituted a "racketeering enterprise." The complaint had no basis in fact. Although Mr. Knedlik threatened, he never filed this lawsuit.
Mr. Knedlik’s conduct in bringing claims against the student, her new employer and other ballet parents, alleging that they comprised a "racketeering enterprise," without any basis in fact, violated Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 3.1, prohibiting bringing frivolous claims; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and RPC 4.4, prohibiting using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person. Mr. Knedlik’s conduct also violated APR 5, the Oath of Attorney.
Matter 3: Mr. Knedlik incorporated the Waterfront Homeowners Association (WHOA). In June 1990, a retired real estate developer received a letter from WHOA containing Mr. Knedlik’s name and address. The letter also contained Mr. Knedlik’s legal opinion letter regarding obtaining a tax rebate. The developer sent Mr. Knedlik $600, and Mr. Knedlik sent the developer a memorandum regarding filing a petition to adjust the assessed property value. The developer filed the petition and the Board of Tax Appeals set an April 6, 1994 hearing date. On March 31, 1994, Mr. Knedlik wrote to the Board, enclosing sales documents, stating that he would be in Ohio on the hearing date, but would "telephone the Board room in Seattle at the appointed hour." Mr. Knedlik did not attend the hearing in person or by telephone. Although the original agreement with the developer stated that Mr. Knedlik’s attendance at hearings was a discretionary act, the developer reasonably believed that Mr. Knedlik would attend, based on his letter to the Board. After this hearing date, Mr. Knedlik failed to answer the developer’s calls and letters.
Mr. Knedlik’s conduct in failing to appear before the tax appeals board, after specifically stating that he would appear by phone, and failure to communicate with his client, violated RPC 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; and RPC 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep their clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters.
Mr. Knedlik’s conduct, as described in the above summary, constituted conduct demonstrating unfitness to practice law as stated in RLD 1.1(p).
Linda Eide and Leslie Allen represented the Bar Association. Mr. Knedlik represented himself. The hearing officer was Mary Wechsler.
|