| Description: |
Lindsay T. Thompson (WSBA No. 15432, admitted 1985), of Port Angeles, was disbarred, effective June 12, 2009, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline is based on conduct in two matters involving lack of diligence, failure to communicate, trust-account irregularities, and failure to protect clients’ interests, as well as noncooperation with a Bar Association investigation.
Matter No. 1: Mr. Thompson represented Mr. and Mrs. H in a superior court case, which was set for trial on September 12, 2006. During the course of the representation, a dispute arose over their legal bills. In order to resolve the dispute, Mr. Thompson agreed to give Mr. and Mrs. H a credit of $9,555.85 against future bills. As of March 21, 2006, Mr. and Mrs. H had a credit balance of $2,836.58. On September 11, 2006, the day before trial was scheduled to begin, Mr. Thompson requested and was granted a continuance due to a health issue. After the September 11, 2006, hearing, Mr. Thompson failed to respond to communications from his clients or from opposing counsel about setting a new trial date. He was ordered to appear for a status conference on November 6, 2006, during which he informed the court that he would continue to act as counsel for Mr. and Mrs. H. The trial was set for January 23, 2007. Immediately after the status conference, Mr. Thompson agreed to meet with Mr. and Mrs. H at his law office to prepare for trial. Subsequently, however, Mr. Thompson failed to meet with the clients and failed to respond to their letters, telephone calls, and e-mails.
On December 28, 2006, Mr. and Mrs. H asked the court to order Mr. Thompson to return their files so they could prepare for trial with the assistance of new counsel. They had been unable to contact Mr. Thompson since the November 6, 2006, status conference. At a hearing on January 5, 2007, the trial date was stricken. The Association made numerous attempts to assist Mr. and Mrs. H in obtaining their files by contacting Mr. Thompson by mail, e-mail, and telephone, but he did not respond. On February 7, 2007, Lawyer B filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. H. On February 12, 2007, Mr. and Mrs. H obtained Mr. Thompson’s new address and telephone number in Port Angeles from a third party. At Mr. and Mrs. H’s request, Mr. Thompson sent Lawyer B a notice of withdrawal on February 24, 2007. In March 2007, Mr. and Mrs. H drove all the way from their home in Oysterville to Mr. Thompson’s home in Port Angeles to ask him for their files. Mr. Thompson took them to a nearby storage unit and gave the files to them. As of this date, Mr. and Mrs. H still have a credit balance of $2,836.58 that Mr. Thompson has not refunded.
Matter No. 2: In March 2006, Mr. Thompson and his former law partner (Mr. G) dissolved their partnership. Mr. Thompson took over the files and the firm’s accounts, which included a client (Client E) who had a $5,154.17 credit balance. On October 13, 2006, Client E wrote to Mr. Thompson to inquire about his balance and to request an accounting. Mr. Thompson did not respond. In April 2007, Client E learned from Mr. G that the firm had been dissolved and that Mr. Thompson retained Client E’s file and the firm’s accounts, including Client E’s credit balance. Mr. G provided Client E with Mr. Thompson’s new address and telephone number. On April 10, 2007, Client E wrote to Mr. Thompson at his new address to request a refund of any advance payment of fees or costs that had not been earned or incurred. Along with his letter, Client E provided Mr. Thompson with a detailed “Statement of Account,” which included, among other things, copies of the checks he had sent to the law firm. Mr. Thompson received Client E’s letter, but he did not respond. Between April 9, 2007, and May 14, 2007, Client E left at least four voice-mail messages for Mr. Thompson, but he did not respond. On Friday, May 25, 2007, the Association’s consumer affairs assistant contacted Mr. Thompson by telephone. Mr. Thompson stated that he had received Client E’s letter, that he was drafting a response, and that he would mail his response to Client E over the weekend. As of the time of publication, Mr. Thompson had never sent a response, and Client E still has a credit balance of $5,154.17 that Mr. Thompson has not yet refunded.
Between January 31, 2007, and June 14, 2007, the Association mailed to Mr. Thompson requests for responses to grievances filed against him by Client H and Client E. Mr. Thompson did not provide responses to the grievances. The Association’s investigator left telephone messages for Mr. Thompson and left business cards at his residence along with requests that Mr. Thompson contact her, but he did not respond. In July and August 2007, notices were mailed to Mr. Thompson by certified mail informing him that he would be subject to discipline and liable for the costs of a deposition if he failed to provide a written responses to the grievances. The notices were returned marked “Unclaimed.” Mr. Thompson was personally served with two subpoenas duces tecum commanding him to appear for a deposition on September 14, 2007. On the afternoon of September 13, 2007, Mr. Thompson sent a fax to disciplinary counsel requesting that the “meeting be rescheduled” because he was “unable to arrange transportation [from Port Angeles] to Seattle.” Disciplinary counsel informed Mr. Thompson by fax, by telephone message, and by mail that the deposition would be continued to September 20, 2007. Mr. Thompson failed to attend the deposition. Mr. Thompson has made no attempt to reschedule the deposition or to communicate with disciplinary counsel in any way since the afternoon of September 13, 2007.
Mr. Thompson’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4(a), requiring a lawyer to promptly inform the client of any decisions or circumstance where client’s informed consent is required, reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished, keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; RPC 1.15A(e), requiring a lawyer to promptly provide a written accounting to a client or third person after distribution of property or upon request; RPC 1.15A(f), requiring that, except as stated in the rules, a lawyer must promptly pay or deliver to the client or third person the property which the client or third person is entitled to receive; RPC 1.16(a)(1), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client or, where the representation has already commenced, requiring a lawyer to withdraw from the representation of a client, if the representation will result in violations of the rules of professional conduct or other laws; RPC 1.16(a)(2), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client; RPC 1.16(d), requiring that a lawyer, upon termination of representation, take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred; 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 in connection with a disciplinary matter.
Scott G. Busby represented the Bar Association. Mr. Thompson did not appear either in person or through counsel. Margarita V. Latsinova was the hearing officer. |