| Description: |
Yong J. Han (WSBA No. 26825, admitted 1997), of Snoqualmie, was suspended for three years, effective June 25, 2009, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This discipline is based on conduct involving lack of communication; trust-account irregularities; charging unreasonable fees; failure to protect client funds; failure to properly supervise lawyer and nonlawyer employees working under him; and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Since his admission, Mr. Han has maintained his own law office, practicing primarily in the areas of criminal defense and personal injury. Between approximately 2003 and 2005, Mr. Han also handled escrows. Between 1998 and 2006, Mr. Han engaged in the following conduct:
• Failed to keep adequate trust-account records, including failing to keep check registers, client ledgers, or a running balance of the IOLTA account, and failing to timely review bank statements or reconcile the statements with the trust account;
• Disbursed trust funds before the corresponding deposits had been made and/or cleared the banking process;
• Failed to properly account for and/or failed to promptly pay to five different clients the funds that the clients were entitled to receive;
• Charged or collected a fee from these five previously mentioned clients in excess of the fee set out in his contingent fee agreement;
• Failed to adequately supervise a subordinate employee lawyer’s preparation of settlement statements, and also failed to adequately supervise that subordinate employee lawyer’s disbursements of personal injury clients’ funds;
• Failed to adequately supervise his non-lawyer employees to ensure that they maintained accurate records of client funds; and, because his non-lawyer employees failed to maintain accurate client accounts, Mr. Han retained excess monies that subrogated insurers declined to collect from settlements, rather than properly distributing those funds to the clients; and
• Failed to provide clients with settlement statements that accurately showed the fees his firm received.
Mr. Han’s conduct violated 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 1.5(a), requiring a lawyer’s fee to be reasonable; former RPC 1.5(b), requiring that when a lawyer has not regularly represented the client, or if the fee agreement is substantially different than that previously used by the parties, the basis or rate of the fee or factors involved in determining the charges for legal services and the lawyer’s billing practices shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation; former RPC 1.5(c), requiring contingent fee agreements to clearly state the method by which the fee is to be determined and that a detailed settlement statement be provided to the client upon completion of the case; former RPC 1.14(a), requiring that all funds paid to a lawyer or law firm, including advances for costs and expenses, shall be deposited in one or more identifiable interest-bearing trust accounts, maintained as set forth in the rules, and no funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm shall be deposited therein; former RPC 1.14(b), requiring a lawyer to (i) maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive and (ii) promptly pay or deliver to a client as requested by a client the funds, securities, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive; former RPC 5.1(a), requiring a partner in a law firm to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurances that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct; former RPC 5.1(b), requiring a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct; former RPC 5.3(a), requiring a partner in a law firm to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurances that a non-lawyer employee’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; former RPC 5.3(b), requiring a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over a non-lawyer to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
Natalea Skvir and Joanne S. Abelson represented the Bar Association. Leland G. Ripley represented Mr. Han. William E. Fitzharris Jr. was the hearing officer. |