| Description: |
Dennis G. Ott (WSBA No. 12172, admitted 1981), of Kelso, resigned in lieu of disbarment, effective June 5, 2009. This resignation was based on his conduct in at least nine different matters involving failure to act with reasonable diligence, failure to communicate, charging unreasonable fees, failure to protect clients' interests, making false statements, destroying documents having potential evidentiary value, violating the rules of professional conduct, engaging in criminal acts, engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and violating duties imposed by the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct.
Beginning as early as 1996 and continuing into 2007, Mr. Ott engaged in the following conduct:
• Mr. Ott directed his legal assistant to prepare a false declaration, and Mr. Ott drafted and filed a memorandum of law, stating that his office had never received a faxed document from opposing counsel in a support modification matter. His office had, in fact, received the faxed document.
• In a second matter, Mr. Ott instructed his legal assistant to shred a fax from opposing counsel after telling counsel that he had not received the fax.
• Mr. Ott billed a client for the preparation of a letter that did not exist. After the client questioned the existence of the letter and filed a grievance, Mr. Ott provided the Bar Association with a copy of a backdated letter and declaration that he directed his staff to prepare to conceal his wrongdoing.
• After failing to keep several appointments with a client in a probate matter, Mr. Ott avoided talking to the client by hiding in his office or slipping out the back door and instructed his staff to lie about his availability.
• In two family law matters, Mr. Ott failed to act diligently by doing no work on either matter. One of the two clients called Mr. Ott's office on several occasions, but he refused to take or return the client's phone calls.
• In a claim against an estate, Mr. Ott failed to communicate to his clients that a scheduled meeting was to be a settlement conference with opposing counsel. Based on Mr. Ott's advice, the clients decided to wait for a larger settlement offer. Later, during a Bar Association investigation, Mr. Ott denied that he suggested to the clients that they wait and instead stated that it was the clients who told him to "put things on hold." To support his position, Mr. Ott provided the Bar Association with a letter he fabricated and backdated.
• In the previous matter, Mr. Ott's failure to act diligently resulted in the dismissal of the clients' case. Mr. Ott neither informed the clients about the dismissal nor returned the phone messages left by the clients requesting case status updates. When Mr. Ott returned one of the clients' many messages, the clients requested that Mr. Ott return their client file; Mr. Ott failed to do so.
• In response to a Bar Association grievance filed by the clients in the previous matter, Mr. Ott provided the Bar Association with a letter he fabricated, purportedly informing the clients that the matter would be dismissed if no further action was taken.
• Mr. Ott failed to act diligently in a probate and guardianship matter involving three disabled adults. Over the course of two years, Mr. Ott failed to return the phone calls of the individual who was named in the will as the personal representative to decedent's estate and as the temporary guardian of the disabled adults.
• In a probate matter, Mr. Ott did not follow the clear directives of the decedent's will in the preparation of a discretionary trust for decedent's granddaughter.
• On several occasions, Mr. Ott had his legal assistants notarize documents when they did not witness the party signing the documents.
Mr. Ott'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 of the status of a matter, promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and explain a matter to the extent 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; 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, such as surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled; former RPC 3.3(a), prohibiting a lawyer from making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; former RPC 3.4(a), prohibiting a lawyer from unlawfully obstructing another party's access to evidence or unlawfully altering, destroying, or concealing a document or other material having potential evidentiary value; RPC 3.4(b), prohibiting a lawyer from falsifying evidence; RPC 5.3(c), with respect to a non-lawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer, a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; RPC 8.1, prohibiting a lawyer in connection with a disciplinary matter from knowingly making a false statement of material fact, failing to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in a matter, or knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority; RPC 8.4(a), prohibiting a lawyer from violating or attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct; RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects (here, by violating RCW 9A.72.040 (false swearing)); RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; 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 in connection with a disciplinary matter.
Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Joseph J. Ganz represented Mr. Ott. Peter A. Matty was the hearing officer. |