| Description: |
Mary Ruth Mann (WSBA No. 9343, admitted 1979), of Seattle, was ordered to receive a reprimand on June 23, 2009, by order of the Disciplinary Board. This discipline was based on conduct in two employment discrimination claims involving failure to act with reasonable diligence, failure to expedite litigation, and violation of court orders with respect to discovery and case scheduling deadlines.
Matter No. 1: On March 31, 1998, Ms. Mann filed a complaint on behalf of Client A against a contractor’s association and others in King County Superior Court, and the court issued a Case Schedule. Ms. Mann failed to comply with the Case Scheduling Order by failing to timely file a Confirmation of Service, a complete Confirmation of Joinder, a disclosure of primary witnesses, or a joint status report. The factual history is set forth in Rivers v. Washington State Conference of Mason Contractors, 145 Wn.2d 674, 41 P.3d 1175 (2002). The plaintiff appealed the dismissal. The trial court had dismissed the case with prejudice as a sanction for plaintiff’s failure to comply with a discovery order and case schedule deadlines. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, directing the trial court to explicitly state on the record how the defendants were prejudiced by the discovery and scheduling order violations and whether it considered alternative sanctions less severe than dismissal. The Court also ruled that “party’s disregard of a court order without reasonable excuse or justification is deemed willful.” On July 2, 2002, the trial court entered the required findings and again dismissed the case. The plaintiff appealed. On July 1, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation Dismissing Appeal.
Matter No. 2: Ms. Mann agreed to represent Client B in his race discrimination and harassment claim against a hospital. The complaint was filed in King County Superior Court on September 26, 1997. Ms. Mann took “at least 54 depositions.” The defendant moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations and the merits of Client B’s claims. A hearing date on the defendant’s motion was set for September 17, 1999. At 4:30 p.m. on September 16, 1999, Ms. Mann filed a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The presiding judge dismissed the case and reserved the issue of sanctions if Client B refiled his claims.
On July 25, 2000, Ms. Mann filed a new discrimination case in King County Superior Court alleging that the defendant hospital discriminated against Client B based on disability and that his termination violated his free speech rights. The Court issued a Case Schedule. Ms. Mann failed to file a Confirmation of Service by January 2, 2001, as required by the scheduling order. On November 6, 2000, the defendant served interrogatories and requests for production. Ms. Mann did not provide any responsive documents or answers by the deadline, despite being granted two extensions of the deadlines. The defendant moved to compel. In response, Ms. Mann offered to pay $200 and promised responses by February 20, 2001. The trial court signed an order to compel, imposed a $350 sanction against Client B, and required responses by February 21, 2001. Ms. Mann delivered the responses on February 20, 2001.
On the morning that defense counsel had scheduled to review documents at Ms. Mann’s office, they were advised that the documents were off-site and otherwise unavailable. About three weeks later, defense counsel did review documents. On October 5, 2001, the defendant filed a second motion to compel. Client B had not paid the $350. Ms. Mann had repeatedly rescheduled and canceled the discovery conference. After the deadline, Ms. Mann filed a response to the defendant’s motion. The Court refused to consider Ms. Mann’s late response. On October 15, 2001, the court granted the defendant’s Motion to Compel, ordered Client B to pay another $500, and set an October 22, 2001, deadline for compliance with outstanding discovery requests. Client B provided supplemental responses. However, citing continuing deficiencies in ordered discovery, on October 23, 2001, the defendant filed a motion for sanctions and asked the court to dismiss the case. On November 1, 2001, while Ms. Mann was in court on another matter, the Court set a hearing on the defendant’s motion for sanctions for November 2, 2001. Ms. Mann did not appear on November 2, 2001, due to a conflicting hearing in another county, but arranged for an associate to cover the hearing. The court required Ms. Mann to appear; by the time she called in from her vehicle en route to the other hearing, the court had granted the motion for sanctions and dismissed Client B’s case. He appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for additional findings in light of the recent decision in Client A’s matter. On June 20, 2003, the trial court made the required findings and entered a second order dismissing Client B’s case. Client B appealed again. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished decision and the Supreme Court denied review.
Ms. Mann’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; RPC 3.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists; and current RPC 8.4(j), prohibiting a lawyer from willfully disobeying or violating a court order directing him or her to do or cease doing an act which he or she ought in good faith to do or forbear [former RLD 1.1(b)].
Joanne S. Abelson represented the Bar Association. Thomas M. Fitzpatrick, Philip A. Talmadge, and Phillip A. Ginsberg represented Ms. Mann. Margarita V. Latsinova was the hearing officer. |