| Description: |
Paul H. King (WSBA No. 7370, admitted 1977), of La Union, Philippines, formerly of Seattle, was disbarred, effective June 10, 2010, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following an appeal. This discipline was based on conduct involving representation of a client while suspended from the practice of law and failure to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings. For more information, see In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against King, 168 Wn.2d 888, 232 P.3d 1095 (2010).
Mr. King was suspended from the practice of law from March 9, 2005, until June 7, 2005. In September 2004, Mr. King was retained by Client R to represent him in potential litigation against his employer. Mr. King retained a local Virginia attorney to assist in filing the lawsuit in Virginia state court. The case was later removed to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Mr. King was the lead lawyer in the litigation but did not apply for pro hac vice admission.
On March 9, 2005, Mr. King notified attorneys for the opposing side, via e-mail, that he was "taking a leave" and that all pleadings should be sent to another lawyer at the same address. Mr. King did not inform Client R or his Virginia co-counsel that he was "taking a leave." Despite this e-mail, Mr. King continued to act as the lead lawyer in the litigation and never advised Client R to seek other counsel due to Mr. King's suspension. On March 25, 2005, Mr. King submitted a declaration to the Association stating that he had concluded his affairs and closed his practice by March 9, 2005, and that he had no active clients. On May 26, 2005, Mr. King's co-counsel discovered that Mr. King was suspended and informed Client R, who fired Mr. King on May 31, 2005, and simultaneously filed a grievance against him.
Disciplinary counsel sent Mr. King a request to respond to Client R's grievance. Mr. King prepared a summons and complaint designating himself as plaintiff and Client R as defendant and attempted service on Client R between July 18 and July 26, 2005. The complaint listed a fake case number and asserted claims and damages arising from Client R's termination of Mr. King, as well as several false statements, including that Mr. King was "licensed to practice law at all times relevant to this lawsuit" and that Client R fired Mr. King on March 9, 2005. Mr. King sent disciplinary counsel notice of the lawsuit on July 22, 2005, and asked that the grievance investigation be deferred. The request was denied by disciplinary counsel. Mr. King later filed a one-page response to Client R's grievance 83 days after he initially indicated he would respond. On October 12 and November 2, 2005, disciplinary counsel issued subpoenas duces tecum commanding Mr. King to appear and produce documents. While the Association was still investigating Client R's claims, disciplinary counsel deposed Witness M regarding Mr. King's actions; however, the testimony was never offered in any proceeding.
On November 21, 2005, Mr. King filed a motion for protective order with the Association, arguing that the Association lacked jurisdiction over Client R's grievance because the case was pending in Virginia, and that testimony from Witness M needed to be suppressed because Mr. King had not received notice of the deposition. The next day, Mr. King failed to show up for his deposition. The Disciplinary Board chair denied his motion for protective order on June 6, 2006, and Mr. King was sent notice of the rescheduled deposition.
On July 20, 2006, Mr. King filed a motion to terminate the deposition and did not appear at the deposition or produce documents required by the subpoena. His motion was later denied, and Mr. King was notified that the deposition would resume on September 5, 2006. His assistant sent a fax to disciplinary counsel on September 1, 2006, indicating Mr. King was out of town for the holiday and not expected back until after September 5. Mr. King did not appear or produce documents at the September 5 deposition.
On January 5, 2007, a Disciplinary Board Review Committee ordered a hearing on Client R's grievance. Mr. King filed a motion to vacate the order, which the Disciplinary Board Chair denied. Subsequently, Mr. King filed a motion to vacate the chair's second denial and a separate notice of unavailability on March 12, 2007, stating he would be unavailable until June 19, 2007. Disciplinary counsel filed and served a formal complaint on Mr. King on May 8, 2007, without ever taking his deposition. A hearing officer was appointed in July 2007. After the hearing officer was appointed, Mr. King amended a petition for writ of mandamus to include the hearing officer's name and filed a witness list that included the hearing officer, disciplinary counsel, the 13 Disciplinary Board members, and five other employees of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. The hearing officer found that Mr. King did not have a good-faith intention to call these witnesses and struck the disciplinary counsel, the Board members, and himself from the list. A month before his hearing, Mr. King filed a motion asking the hearing officer to recuse himself because he was a named party on the mandamus action. The motion was denied.
Mr. King's hearing began April 28, 2008, and concluded May 12, 2008. Among other findings, the hearing officer found that from the start, Mr. King continuously treated disciplinary proceedings as a "cat-and-mouse game" by failing to comply with orders, cooperate in post-complaint discovery, and "repeatedly waiting until the last minute to raise objections that could have been raised months earlier." Mr. King made 17 separate efforts (including appeals) to halt or delay the hearing, most of which were frivolous.
In his appeal of the hearing officer's disbarment recommendation, Mr. King did not dispute the hearing officer's reasoning and conclusions that Mr. King's actions violated multiple ethical rules or that a number of those violations independently warranted disbarment. Mr. King never challenged the hearing officer's findings of fact, but rather alleged violations of due process and appearance of fairness. The Supreme Court found Mr. King's due process rights had not been violated and that his claims of fundamental unfairness were unfounded, and ordered Mr. King disbarred.
Mr. King's conduct violated RPC 3.1, prohibiting a lawyer from bringing or defending a proceeding, or asserting or controverting an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; RPC 5.8(e), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in the practice of law while on inactive status, or while suspended from the practice of law for any cause; 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 (here, RCW 2.48.180, 9A.72.020, 9A.72.040); RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; 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; and RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer from violating a duty or sanction imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct in connection with a disciplinary matter.
Scott G. Busby and Linda B. Eide represented the Bar Association. Mr. King represented himself. David M. Schoeggl was the hearing officer. |