| Description: |
Melvin L. Kleweno Jr. (WSBA No. 3602, admitted 1960), of Kent, received a censure following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on March 8, 2002. This discipline is based upon his failure to avoid conflicts of interest in the 1990s.
Mr. Kleweno and three other lawyers owned TIMCO, a general partnership. These lawyers were also partners in a law firm. In the late 1960s, TIMCO purchased "lot six," a parcel of land adjoining three other parcels already owned by TIMCO. An alleyway provided access to the four lots, including the law firm’s offices. The alleyway was located along the boundary between lots six and seven; another family owned lot seven.
From 1975 through 1984, Mr. G leased lot six from TIMCO for a Mexican restaurant. In 1976, Mr. Kleweno began representing Mr. G and the restaurant. In the late 1970s, Mr. G purchased the restaurant from the other partial owner. Mr. Kleweno assisted with the sale, incorporated the business, and acted as corporate counsel. In 1984, Mr. G purchased lot six from TIMCO. The law firm prepared the sales documents, handled the closing, and represented TIMCO in the sale. Although Mr. G knew that the law firm partners owned TIMCO, no one formally disclosed to him that the law firm represented TIMCO. Mr. Kleweno executed the deed of trust, statutory warranty deed, and right of first refusal. None of the sale documents included an express reservation of easement for use of the alleyway. No one explained to Mr. G that allowing others to use the alleyway could affect his ownership of that portion of his parcel. After the sale, the law firm’s clients continued to use the alleyway to access the office. Mr. Kleweno continued to represent Mr. G until 1995, when a dispute developed regarding the alleyway.
In the late 1980s, the law firm moved its offices and leased the building to a daycare, which increased the amount of traffic using the alleyway. In January 1995, Mr. G delivered a letter to the law firm complaining about the increased traffic. The law firm responded that the alleyway was a prescriptive easement, and in October 1995, TIMCO and the daycare commenced a lawsuit against Mr. G. to establish the prescriptive easement. The court ruled that the alleyway was a prescriptive easement based on the required use during the daycare’s tenancy and for years before.
Mr. Kleweno’s conduct violated DR5-104(A), prohibiting a law firm from entering a business transaction with a client unless the client consents after a full disclosure (the misconduct here occurred prior to the adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct); and RPC 1.7(a) and (b), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or the lawyer’s own interests, unless the client consents in writing after a full consultation.
Michael Gendler and Jonathan Burke represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Kleweno.
|