| Description: |
Stephen J. Oelrich (WSBA No. 29263, admitted 1999), of Tacoma, was suspended for three years, effective February 9, 2009, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This discipline is based on conduct in six matters involving failure to provide competent representation, failure to abide by clients’ objectives, lack of diligence, failure to communicate, failure to return unearned funds, and conduct involving misrepresentation.
Matter No. 1: In March 2005, Mr. B paid Mr. Oelrich $2,000 to represent him in a child-support modification, to obtain a restraining order against his ex-wife, and to defend him in a contempt action for his alleged failure to pay child support and uninsured medical expenses. Mr. B was in the United States Army stationed in Virginia; he communicated with Mr. Oelrich by e-mail and relied on him to handle matters.
One of Mr. B’s objectives was to obtain a restraining order against his ex-wife to keep her from harassing him at work. Mr. Oelrich drafted a petition and Mr. B signed it. Mr. Oelrich never filed the petition. As a result, when Mr. B’s ex-wife harassed him at work, Mr. B had no recourse. Mr. B’s contempt hearing was originally scheduled for April 2005, but was rescheduled several times and ultimately re-set for June 2005. Mr. Oelrich requested a continuance because he had not completed the necessary paperwork. The court granted the continuance, but ordered a $250 sanction against Mr. B for the delay. Because Mr. B had questions about his case and had spoken to Mr. Oelrich directly on only one occasion, he called Mr. Oelrich’s office almost every day between June 2, 2005, and June 20, 2005. Mr. Oelrich never returned the calls. Mr. Oelrich did not inform Mr. B about the sanction. He then filed Mr. B’s response late, and the court refused to consider it. The court did not find Mr. B in contempt, but made several orders regarding healthcare, daycare costs, and attorney’s fees. The court granted Mr. B a $41-per-month credit for ordinary healthcare costs. The court also ordered that if the mother did not provide documentation of daycare costs to Mr. Oelrich, daycare costs would be immediately reduced. This would have had the effect of reducing Mr. B’s child-support obligation by $134.50 per month. Mr. Oelrich never sent Mr. B a copy of the order and did not adequately explain the impact of the order. Further, he never pursued the reduction in Mr. B’s child-support obligation for the healthcare credit or when the mother failed to provide the required daycare documentation.
In September 2005, Mr. B received a letter from the Division of Child Support (DCS) stating that his paycheck would be garnished for current and past-due support obligations. This did not take into account the daycare adjustment. Mr. B contacted Mr. Oelrich, who assured him that he would take care of it. In October 2005 and December 2005, Mr. B received two more letters from DCS stating that they were going to garnish his wages. Mr. Oelrich took no action on behalf of Mr. B with DCS or in superior court to prevent the garnishment. Mr. Oelrich took no action to follow through with implementing a court-ordered reduction of Mr. B’s child support obligation. During the course of the representation, Mr. Oelrich never responded to Mr. B’s questions and concerns on other matters. Mr. B ultimately hired another lawyer to implement the court’s order and clarify his child-support obligations, but his tax refund was seized and he overpaid healthcare expenses.
Matter No. 2: Mr. H hired Mr. Oelrich to pursue a personal injury case against Clark County on a contingency fee basis for an injury he received while incarcerated. The statute of limitations for this injury was three years and expired on October 30, 2003. Mr. H called Mr. Oelrich numerous times, urging him to file his claim. Mr. Oelrich did not return Mr. H’s calls. In November 2002, Mr. H paid Mr. Oelrich a filing fee of $110 to ensure that his case would be filed within the three-year statute of limitations. Thereafter, Mr. H left messages on Mr. Oelrich’s answering machine urging him to file his claim. Mr. Oelrich did not return Mr. H’s calls. Mr. Oelrich filed a suit against Clark County on June 17, 2004. The suit was filed in Thurston County, which was the wrong venue, according to statute. In addition, the statute of limitations had already expired on the date of filing and Mr. Oelrich did not serve any of the defendants within 90 days of filing his complaint. The defendants brought a motion to dismiss. Mr. Oelrich stated that his failure to serve defendants within 90 days was excusable neglect, due to “a simple act of oversight.” The court rejected Mr. Oelrich’s arguments, and Mr. H’s case was dismissed with prejudice.
Matter No. 3: Mr. F hired Mr. Oelrich to represent him in a child-support-modification action in early June 2005. Mr. F was in the Armed Forces and deployed in Iraq. Mr. F’s main concern was that his child support would increase based on extra pay that he was receiving due to his deployment. Mr. F’s extra pay was scheduled to end in November 2005, when he returned from Iraq. Mr. F wanted to ensure that his child support would not be based on this pay after November 2005. Mr. F and Mr. Oelrich agreed that contact between them would be by e-mail and telephone. Mr. F paid Mr. Oelrich $1,000. The fee agreement provided for an hourly billing rate. The modification hearing was scheduled for June 24, 2005. On that day, Mr. Oelrich e-mailed Mr. F requesting “basic information.” Mr. F responded with the answers and requested that he be notified of the outcome of the hearing. Mr. Oelrich sent Mr. F an e-mail a few days later explaining that the hearing was stricken because ‘’we needed to have more time to respond.” This was the last communication Mr. F had from Mr. Oelrich. The hearing was reset for July 22, 2005. Mr. Oelrich received notice of the new hearing date on June 27, 2005. Mr. Oelrich did not attend the July 22, 2005, hearing or inform Mr. F of the new date. A modification order was entered by default and was mailed to Mr. F by the prosecutor. This order increased Mr. F’s child-support obligation based on his deployment pay. Mr. F tried repeatedly to contact the respondent, without success. Mr. Oelrich did little, if anything to earn his fee on this matter, yet he did not return any of Mr. F’s fees. In August 2005, Mr. F sent additional e-mails and a letter to the respondent requesting information on his case and an accounting of his fees. Mr. Oelrich did not send Mr. F a statement for his services or otherwise account for the $1,000 that Mr. F paid him.
Matter No. 4: Ms. S hired Mr. Oelrich in 2003 to represent her in an employment discrimination lawsuit filed against her former employer and her labor union. On March 3, 2004, the court dismissed Ms. S’s claims following defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On March 26, 2004, Mr. Oelrich filed a Notice of Appeal in the Ninth Circuit. The Court set a briefing schedule that required Mr. Oelrich to file the opening brief by May 18, 2004, and mailed a copy of the order to him. On April 22, 2004, the court issued an order setting an assessment conference for May 21, 2004. Mr. Oelrich received a copy on April 23, 2004. On May 21, 2004, the court entered an order rescheduling the settlement assessment conference to June 22, 2004. Mr. Oelrich received a copy of this order as well. Mr. Oelrich did not attend the conference and did not return telephone messages left by court staff on his answering machine and with his staff.
On June 29, 2004, the court issued an order requiring Mr. Oelrich to file a notice within seven days indicating dates and times he would make himself available for a continuation of the settlement assessment conference. The order warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the appeal or sanctions. On July 16, 2004, Ms. S’s appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Mr. Oelrich’s offices received this order on July 19, 2004. Ms. S tried unsuccessfully to reach Mr. Oelrich numerous times. He failed to return her calls. After months of failed attempts, Ms. S finally met with Mr. Oelrich. In his answer to the Bar Association’s complaint, Mr. Oelrich admitted that he told Ms. S that he missed the appeal deadline for her matter because he never received the court’s scheduling order, but stated that this was not a misrepresentation. Ms. S hired Attorney B to review her case. Attorney B determined that, given the court’s attempts to contact Mr. Oelrich, there was little or no chance that they would reinstate Ms. S’s appeal.
Matter No. 5: In September 2003, Mr. and Mrs. N paid Mr. Oelrich $2,000 to represent them in a child-custody-modification action against Mr. N’s ex-wife. After the modification action was filed, Mr. N decided that he wanted to transfer legal custody of his son to his ex-wife. He asked Mr. Oelrich to accomplish this. In December 2003, the ex-wife’s attorney (Lawyer C) set a hearing for December 30, 2003, to enter a final parenting plan. On that day, Mr. Oelrich signed a parenting plan drafted by Lawyer C without discussing it with Mr. N. This plan, while changing the residential time, did not change the designation of custodian to the mother. Mr. Oelrich did not provide Mr. or Mrs. N with a copy of the plan, despite repeated requests. In February 2004, Lawyer C wrote to Mr. Oelrich and informed him that Mr. N had claimed his son as an exemption on his 2003 tax return, in violation of a court order. Lawyer C requested a written assurance that Mr. N would file an amended return or she would bring a contempt action against Mr. N. Mr. Oelrich did not answer Lawyer C’s letter or inform Mr. and Mrs. N of the letter. Had they been informed of Lawyer C’s letter, Mr. and Mrs. N would have filed an amended return to avoid a contempt action.
On February 20, 2004, Lawyer C filed a contempt motion. The hearing was set for March 9, 2004. In support of her motion, Mr. N’s ex-wife described Lawyer C’s attempts to contact Mr. Oelrich. Mr. N was served with an Order to Show Cause a few days before the contempt hearing. Mrs. N called Mr. Oelrich several times, but he did not return her calls. On March 5, 2004, Mr. Oelrich’s assistant told Mrs. N that Mr. Oelrich could not attend the hearing. Mrs. N requested that Mr. Oelrich call her. Mr. Oelrich did not return her call or ask the court to continue the hearing. Mr. N attended the March 9, 2004, hearing and represented himself. At the hearing, Mr. N was held in contempt and ordered to pay attorney’s fees and costs of $195. After failing to obtain a copy of the final parenting plan from Mr. Oelrich, Mrs. N obtained one from Superior Court. It was only then that Mr. and Mrs. N realized that the final plan designated Mr. N as custodian of his son, contrary to his objectives. Mrs. N wrote Mr. Oelrich a letter detailing her complaints. Mr. Oelrich met Mrs. N at a restaurant to give her Mr. N’s file. Mr. Oelrich apologized profusely and blamed Lawyer C for the errors. He promised to remedy the parenting plan. Mrs. N contacted Mr. Oelrich on numerous occasions after that meeting, but Mr. Oelrich failed to return her calls. Mr. and Mrs. N eventually paid another attorney $2,500 to amend the final parenting plan.
Matter No. 6: Mrs. X contacted Mr. Oelrich in 2003 because her mother was preparing to sue her over a loan that Mrs. X’s mother had made to her. Mrs. X asked Mr. Oelrich to assist her in settling the matter. Mr. Oelrich told Mrs. X that he had written a letter and sent it to her mother’s attorney twice, but Mrs. X never received a copy of the letter, despite repeated requests. On July 13, 2003, Mrs. X gave Mr. Oelrich a cashier’s check to send to her mother’s attorney, but Mr. Oelrich never forwarded the check.
On March 2, 2005, Mrs. X’s mother sued Mrs. X and her husband in Pierce County Superior Court. The trial was scheduled for September 14, 2005. Mr. and Mrs. X took leave from work and appeared at the courthouse, but were informed when they arrived that the trial had been cancelled. Mrs. X e-mailed Mr. Oelrich requesting information, but did not receive a response. On September 23, 2005, Mr. Oelrich e-mailed a member of his staff and told her to call Mr. and Mrs. X that day to explain to them that the case had been reset because the opposing attorney had not perfected the case for trial. Mr. Oelrich stated in the e-mail that his office had identified a problem with the e-mail system and this would be explained in a letter he would write to Mr. and Mrs. X. Mr. Oelrich did not send a letter to them. The case against Mr. and Mrs. X was calendared again in the spring of 2006. In an e-mail dated March 1, 2006, Mrs. X specifically asked Mr. Oelrich if he could settle the case without going to trial. Mr. Oelrich did not pursue a settlement.
Between March and June 2006, Mr. Oelrich did not respond to Mrs. X’s frequent calls to his office for updates on the case. The court set a settlement conference for June 8, 2006, but it was re-scheduled at Mrs. X’s request. She met with Mr. Oelrich and asked him again to settle the case. On June 9, 2006, Mr. Oelrich wrote a letter to Mr. and Mrs. X stating that he intended to withdraw. After Mr. Oelrich withdrew, Mrs. X hired another attorney to represent her at the settlement conference. The case settled at the conference after about an hour. Mrs. X has repeatedly requested a copy of her file from Mr. Oelrich, who has not responded.
Mr. Oelrich’s conduct in these six matters violated RPC 1.1., requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client; former RPC 1.2(a), requiring a lawyer to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and to consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued; 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 1.14(b), requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records of client funds and property, and to promptly pay the funds to the client upon request; former RPC 1.15(d), requiring a lawyer to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as surrendering paper and property to which the client is entitled and returning any advance payment of fee that has not been earned; and RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in co
Francesca D’Angelo represented the Bar Association. Stephen J. Oelrich represented himself, but did not appear for the hearing. William J. Murphy was the hearing officer. |