| Description: |
Reed C. Pell (WSBA No. 6821, admitted 1976), of Yakima, was suspended for two years, effective September 16, 2009, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This discipline was based on conduct in four matters involving failure to provide competent representation, failure to act with reasonable diligence and to expedite litigation, failure to communicate, falsifying and offering false evidence, commission of a criminal act, dishonest conduct, and engaging in conduct demonstrating an unfitness to practice law. The Court imposed conditions on reinstatement and probation.
Matter No. 1: In July 2002, Mr. Pell filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition on behalf of Clients A (husband and wife). Mr. Pell was going to convert Clients A’s Bankruptcy Plan to a Chapter 13 in October 2002. In March 2003, Mr. Pell filed an amended Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor, which disclosed a fee arrangement of $750, but did not show Clients A this disclosure prior to filing it. Thereafter, Mr. Pell failed to timely file documents, causing the trustee to file a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Timely File Documents. Mr. Pell then filed the required documents and the court denied the trustee’s Motion to Dismiss.
The trustee objected to confirmation of the Chapter 13 Plan and the case was set for trial. A pre-trial hearing on valuation was scheduled for November 3, 2003. With regard to a possible stay, the court ordered Mr. Pell to file a Motion for Stay and amended schedules by no later than October 27, 2003. Mr. Pell did not file the motion or the schedules. On the day of the valuation hearing, Mr. Pell faxed a letter to the Bankruptcy Court and to the lawyer for the Chapter 13 trustee stating that he was not ready for the hearing due to personal issues. The letter asked the court to refrain from dismissing the bankruptcy case and to continue the valuation hearing for two weeks. In support of the request for continuance, Mr. Pell included a document termed a declaration (actually, an unsworn letter) that purportedly bore Mr. A’s signature and that indicated that Mr. A also wanted the hearing continued. Mr. Pell knew that Mr. A’s signature had been forged on the document, but nevertheless presented it as being true.
Mr. Pell appeared at the November 3, 2003, hearing and told the court he would attempt to find another lawyer to represent Clients A, whereupon the court continued the valuation hearing for two weeks. Mr. Pell filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case and a notice of intent to withdraw and substitute Attorney B. Attorney B handled the remaining issues surrounding dismissal of the case. Mr. A was unaware that Mr. Pell had withdrawn or that attorney B had substituted as counsel. Thereafter, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed Clients A’s bankruptcy case.
Prior to the dismissal, Mr. Pell had filed a Chapter 13 Flat Fee Agreement that provided he was to receive a flat fee of $2,000, paid from the plan. After the bankruptcy case was dismissed, Clients A delivered $2,000 to Mr. Pell from the funds they were refunded by the court that they had paid into the plan. Clients A believed that Mr. Pell had agreed to file on their behalf a second Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition without charging any additional fees for the second case. Mr. Pell filed the second bankruptcy petition in January 2004, at a time when Mr. A was out of the country on military duty and his wife had power of attorney. Clients A did not understand that the plan and filings called for payment of $2,000 attorney’s fees from the bankruptcy estate for the second bankruptcy. At some point during the representation, Mr. Pell had Clients A (one or both of them) sign documents in blank. Mr. Pell filed a proposed Chapter 13 Plan in the second bankruptcy purportedly bearing Mrs. A’s signature; however, she did not sign the proposed plan. Clients A either did not see or did not understand the proposed plan prior to Mr. Pell filing it. Other documents were filed under Mrs. A’s purported signature, but she did not sign the documents.
Matter No. 2: In March 2005, Mr. Pell filed a Voluntary Petition for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy for Client B. On May 16, 2005, Mr. Pell contacted the office of the Chapter 13 trustee and discovered that Client B’s case was scheduled for a creditor’s meeting on May 18, 2005. At that point, Mr. Pell had not yet filed a proposed Chapter 13 Plan or schedules or other documents. He stated to the lawyer for the Chapter 13 trustee that he was in the process of finishing the documents and would do so before the meeting. Mr. Pell in fact did not file the documents and did not communicate with Client B regarding the creditor’s meeting. Client B called the office of the Chapter 13 trustee to see if she should appear at the creditor’s meeting. At the creditor’s meeting, the court set a Motion to Dismiss Client B’s case on June 2, 2005, based on Mr. Pell’s failure to file proposed plan and schedules. Mr. Pell subsequently filed a proposed Chapter 13 Plan and various other documents, and the Motion to Dismiss was denied. Various plan documents, including the plan, Flat Fee Agreement, and a declaration concerning schedules were purportedly signed by Client B, but in fact were falsely signed by Mr. Pell. Documents prepared and submitted by Mr. Pell in Client B’s bankruptcy were incomplete, inadequate, and failed to make certain entries, which may have expedited or potentially expedited the ability of certain creditors to get relief from an automatic stay and foreclose on the Client B’s property. Mr. Pell moved to dismiss Client B’s bankruptcy and thereafter no further action was taken by Mr. Pell. Client B thereafter was represented by different counsel.
Matter No. 3: Client C was involved in a dissolution and custody dispute with her estranged husband. Client C’s ex-husband had obtained a temporary ex parte restraining order restricting Client C from contact with their children and had filed a motion to extend the restraining order. Client C was concerned about the restriction on seeing her children. Mr. Pell agreed to appear for Client C at a hearing set on September 6, 2005, but did not submit a notice of appearance or any written response. During the September 6, 2005, hearing, Mr. Pell and Client C were in dispute as to whether the matter should be continued. Mr. Pell was also either intoxicated or under the influence of excessive amounts of prescription drugs. He presented an unkempt appearance and engaged in blurred and barely understandable speech. Mr. Pell was in full view and within the hearing range of a number of persons in the courtroom, including some non-lawyers. The judge who presided over the hearing determined that Mr. Pell was unable to represent Client C adequately. Client C did not want the hearing continued, creating additional time before the visitation restriction could be revised or lifted. However, the hearing was continued until September 9, 2005, and Client C was represented by another lawyer.
Matter No. 4: On September 6, 2005, Mr. Pell appeared on Client D’s behalf at a bail/probable cause hearing. Client D had been booked on charges of threatening to bomb or injure a school. At Client D’s hearing, Mr. Pell appeared disheveled and apparently under the influence of some substance or alcohol. The same was noticed by the judge, who called Mr. Pell into his chambers following the hearing to point the same out to Mr. Pell.
Mr. Pell’s conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; 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 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; RPC 3.3(a)(4), prohibiting a lawyer from offering evidence that the lawyer knows to be false; RPC 3.4(b), prohibiting a lawyer from falsifying evidence; 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; 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(n), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct demonstrating unfitness to practice law.
M. Craig Bray represented the Bar Association. Timothy R. Weaver and John Adam Moore Jr. represented Mr. Pell. David L. Broom was the hearing officer. |