| Description: |
Christina S. Denison (WSBA No. 25096, admitted 1995), of Bellevue, was suspended for one year, effective April 28, 2010, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. This discipline is based on conduct involving failure to act diligently, communicate promptly, provide reasonable consultation and explanation, comply with requests for information, and return client property and unearned fees.
Matter No. 1: On May 12, 2006, Clients O and C, husband and wife, retained Ms. Denison to represent them in an adjustment of status for client C, the wife. At the conference with Ms. Denison, the couple executed a flat fee agreement and paid $1,000 with the balance due in monthly installments, starting in June 2006. Ms. Denison agreed to prepare and file applications for adjustment of status with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) based on “lawful” entry into the United States. The agreement did not specify what forms or applications would be filed. Ms. Denison told the clients she would contact them to set up an appointment once the paperwork was ready to review. Except for income tax returns, the couple provided all necessary documentation to Ms. Denison prior to the end of June.
After their first meeting, Client O was initially able to contact Ms. Denison by phone. In later communications, Ms. Denison promised to contact Client O to set up an appointment, but did not follow through. On one or two occasions, Client O was able to secure an appointment for a later date, but when the couple traveled to Ms. Denison’s office, she failed to show.
Around June or July 2006, Client C requested the return of her passport so that she could travel back to her home country to visit her sick mother. At the time Client C indicated her intention to travel and requested her passport, Ms. Denison did not advise her that her application was ready to be filed and lacked only the filing fees. She also did not counsel her client on how to properly protect her immigration status pending a successful adjustment of status.
By July 2006, Client O was unable to reach Ms. Denison by phone. The couple traveled unannounced to Ms. Denison’s office only to discover from other tenants that she had moved. Ms. Denison did not provide her clients with written notice of her move and left no general voice message advising of the move on her telephone answering machine. Ms. Denison stated she gave notice to her clients by handing them a copy of letterhead with her new address. After the clients obtained her new address, the clients appeared twice unannounced at Ms. Denison’s new office. On the first visit, they were unable to see her; the second time, they waited in her reception area for half an hour until she became available. She apologized for the delay in their matter and told them not to worry. In addition to direct attempts at communication, the clients asked a friend to contact Ms. Denison on their behalf. When Ms. Denison learned the purpose of the call, she terminated the contact due to attorney/client privilege. Thereafter, she took no steps to inquire into the needs of her clients or advise them of the need for a release so that she could communicate with a third party. During the course of representation, Ms. Denison did not initiate a single communication with her clients. In contrast, the couple made more than 30 phone calls to Ms. Denison’s office.
Ms. Denison advised Client C that she would need to file a waiver (I-601), along with an affidavit, because of a potential deficiency in the client’s “lawful” entry into the United States. Client C did not feel comfortable preparing this affidavit herself and insisted that Ms. Denison prepare it for her. Ms. Denison refused for fear of sanctions by DHS should they find that she colluded with a client to commit fraud. Ms. Denison justified her failure to file the adjustment of status application due to her client’s refusal to prepare the requested affidavit. However, she did not give her clients the option to file the I-485 (adjustment of status) or the I-601 (waiver) without the affidavit. In addition, Ms. Denison did not make requests to the clients or communicate requests effectively enough that the clients understood they needed to bring the monthly installment payments current or were obligated to pay the filing fee for the application.
In early December 2006, Client C consulted with another immigration lawyer. On December 21, 2006, the lawyer faxed Ms. Denison to advise her of his appearance and requested the client file. On January 2, 2007, the lawyer called Ms. Denison again to request delivery of the file within 10 days. Ms. Denison agreed to provide the file when she was able to get to it and abruptly terminated the call. She never contacted the lawyer to notify him that the file was ready for pickup. At the end of January 2007, the WSBA contacted Ms. Denison to request the file, which was promptly delivered the next day; however, Ms. Denison secured a protective order on four immigration documents on the basis of unjust enrichment, effectively preventing the clients from making use of, or receiving any benefit from, any of the work she performed.
When the clients demanded return of their fees, Ms. Denison insisted the fees were earned because she had worked 10–11 hours on the case. However, she did not maintain any billing records or daily notes to support her claim.
Matter No. 2: On January 2, 2006, Client P met with Ms. Denison to discuss a divorce action, the impact of the divorce action on her immigration status, and alleged domestic abuse by her husband. Client P had been granted temporary permanent resident status in the United States after marriage to her husband. After two incidents of reported domestic violence, Client P left the marital home and moved in with a relative. The husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and threatened Client P’s legal status. Client P sought to live and work permanently in the United States, and to get help with her divorce. Ms. Denison recommended filing a Battered Spouse Petition (BSP) and advised Client P that her retainer would be $4,000. The generic fee agreement bore no client name or contact information. Much of the handwritten paragraph describing legal services to be performed describes the burden on Client P to provide true and accurate information. The only language setting out work to be performed by Ms. Denison states, “Prepare and file Battered Spouse Petition on behalf of client.” The contract bore Ms. Denison’s undated signature, and was neither initialed nor signed by the client. The contract made no mention of the divorce action.
On January 9, 2006, at Ms. Denison’s direction, Client P brought in her divorce papers and also made her first payment of $500. Ms. Denison reviewed the documents and advised Client P not to contest the divorce action. Had the contract been fully executed, Client P would have been put on notice that the $4,000 fee did not include any work on her divorce case. Ms. Denison stated she relied on her limited Notice of Entry of Appearance in the I-360 BSP action to put both her client and Homeland Security on notice that she was appearing for the BSP only.
Ms. Denison knew that approval of the BSP would not secure her client’s right to live and work in the United States and that the client would need to file an I-751 (Petition for Removal of Conditions), either while the BSP was pending or immediately after receiving approval of the BSP. Ms. Denison did not advise Client P that an I-751 needed to be filed and that it was simple enough to do herself. The contract did not exclude the I-751 filing; it only required a separate fee or fee agreement for “applications” not petitions. Since the I-751 was necessary, Client P reasonably understood that the filing would be included in the fee of $4,000. Client P paid the balance of the $4,000 fee in several installments in January 2006.
On or after the end of July 2006, Client P received a Supplemental Notice of I-360 Approval from Homeland Security. At approximately the same time, Ms. Denison moved her office without notice to Client P. The July 2006 notice directed Client P to file an I-765 application for employment authorization. Over a three-month period, Client P called Ms. Denison in excess of 18 times to inquire into her case, but received no response. In November or December of 2006, when Client P was no longer able to reach Ms. Denison by telephone, she traveled to Ms. Denison’s office, only to find that she had moved. Alarmed and frustrated, Client P sought assistance from a relative, who tried to communicate with Ms. Denison on Client P’s behalf. Ms. Denison advised the relative that she was unable to speak with him because of attorney/client privilege. On December 28, 2006, Client P, with the help of her relative, faxed and mailed a letter to Ms. Denison requesting a copy of her file and legal contract. On December 29, 2006, Client P appeared unannounced at Ms. Denison’s new office and was told she could not be seen without an appointment and was threatened with security if she did not leave. Client P prepared three more letters dated January 8, 9, and 15, 2007, expressing her concerns regarding additional time and the sensitive steps she believed were necessary on her case. She also requested a copy of her file and her case receipt.
On January 11, 2007, with the help of her relative, Client P accessed information about her case on Homeland Security’s website. On January 12, 2007, Client P wrote to the WSBA and Homeland Security to complain of misconduct by Ms. Denison and requested the return of her $4,000. Until the 2007 Bar complaint, Ms. Denison stated she had no knowledge of the May 2006 Notice of Approval of the I-360 BSP for her client. Although Ms. Denison could have electronically tracked the case on Homeland Security’s website, she did not do so and took no action for almost 11 months.
Ms. Denison did not maintain billing records and/or daily notes and could not state how many hours she performed on Client P’s case, but asserted her $4,000 retainer was based on an estimate of hours she intended to spend multiplied by an hourly rate of $250/hour. The contract indicated that work not included in the job description would be billed at $150/hour.
Ms. Denison’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4(a)(2), requiring a lawyer to reasonably consult with the client about the means by which a client’s objectives are to be accomplished; RPC 1.4(a)(3), requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; RPC 1.4(a)(4), requiring a lawyer to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; 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; and 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, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned or incurred.
Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Joseph J. Ganz represented Ms. Denison. Andrekita Silva was the hearing officer. |