| Description: |
Stephen J. Oelrich (WSBA No. 29263, admitted 1999), of Tacoma, was disbarred, effective June 24, 2009, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline is based on conduct involving failure to communicate, non-cooperation in a disciplinary investigation, and violations of duties imposed under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct in connection with a disciplinary matter.
On March16, 2007, Mr. J paid Mr. Oelrich $2,500 to represent him in gaining visitation rights with his eight-year-old son. Mr. Oelrich filed a petition for establishment of parentage, a proposed parenting plan, and motion for a restraining order on Mr. J’s behalf on March 27, 2007. In response, the mother of the child alleged that Mr. J was not the father of the child. Mr. J took a paternity test and it was determined that he was not the biological father of the child. Mr. J told Mr. Oelrich that he wanted to pursue visitation anyway. Mr. Oelrich did not contact Mr. J for several weeks and then told Mr. J that it appeared the child’s mother was going to contest visitation. On May 30, 2007, Mr. J wrote to Mr. Oelrich and told him that he had decided not to pursue visitation over objections from the child’s mother. He told Mr. Oelrich that he wanted to see about having his child support suspended and his name taken off the child’s birth certificate. He also stated that he wanted to pursue a civil action against the child’s mother. The same day, Mr. Oelrich replied that he would take care of the requests. Mr. Oelrich did nothing further. Mr. J e-mailed and called Mr. Oelrich several times, but did not hear from him again until nearly a month later, when Mr. Oelrich e-mailed Mr. J and told him that he was sick and would send an e-mail at a later date. This was the last communication that Mr. J had with Mr. Oelrich. Mr. J called and e-mailed Mr. Oelrich and went to his office several times. Each time, the office was closed. The trial date in the paternity matter was set for August 24, 2007. Mr. J requested Mr. Oelrich’s presence at the court date. Mr. Oelrich did not respond. Mr. J took the day off work and appeared for court, but was told that the trial had been continued. Mr. Oelrich knew that the trial had been continued but failed to notify Mr. J.
Mr. J sent Mr. Oelrich a letter via certified mail in which he requested that Mr. Oelrich withdraw from the case and refund his retainer. Mr. Oelrich received this letter, but did not withdraw, refund Mr. J’s money, or contact Mr. J. Mr. J could not afford to hire another attorney and could not proceed pro se because Mr. Oelrich had not withdrawn.
Mr. J filed a grievance against Oelrich. By letters dated August 31, 2007, and October 3, 2007, the Association requested a response from Mr. Oelrich, but he did not respond to either letter. The Association issued and personally served a subpoena on Mr. Oelrich, requiring him to appear at a deposition on December 26, 2007. Mr. Oelrich failed to respond or appear at the deposition. The Association petitioned for Mr. Oelrich’s interim suspension. The Supreme Court issued an order scheduling a hearing on the Association’s petition for February 28, 2008. Mr. Oelrich was served with the order but failed to appear, and his license to practice law was suspended on March 3, 2008. On March 5, 2008, the Association sent Mr. Oelrich a letter outlining his duties on suspension, including the requirement that, within 25 days of his suspension, he file an affidavit showing full compliance with the provisions of Title 14. Mr. Oelrich has not filed the required affidavit.
Mr. Oelrich’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4(a)(3), requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; RPC 1.4(b), requiring a lawyer to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; RPC 1.5(a), prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses; RPC 1.16(d), requiring that, upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, 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; 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 1.5 and ELC 14.3).
Erica Temple represented the Bar Association. Mr. Oelrich did not appear either in person or through counsel. Barbara A. Peterson was the hearing officer. |