| Description: |
Hyon Chun Pak (WSBA No. 24238, admitted 1994), of Tukwila, was disbarred on July 22, 2010, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on conduct involving lack of competence, failure to act diligently and promptly, failure to return client property, failure to cooperate with a Bar investigation, failure to notify parties of suspension, and practicing law while suspended.
In October 2003, Mr. Pak was hired by a husband and wife (clients) to represent them in a lawsuit on the wrongful death of their son, who had died while trying to save his girlfriend from drowning in a swimming pool at a resort in September 2003. In September 2006, just before the statute of limitations was about to run out, Mr. Pak filed a complaint in superior court against the owner of the resort. The case was later removed to U.S. District Court. Mr. Pak took little action on the case other than to hire an expert on pools and did not investigate whether the other defendants had liability. By filing the complaint just before the statute expired, Mr. Pak eliminated the possibility of adding additional defendants. He also failed to hire crucial expert witnesses to evaluate economic losses resulting from the son’s death and the effects of the loss on the clients.
On January 4, 2008, while the case was pending, Mr. Pak was suspended from the practice of law for one year based on misconduct in another disciplinary matter. Mr. Pak was informed of the effective date of suspension when he was served with a copy of the Washington Supreme Court order on December 28, 2007. Mr. Pak was required, under ELC 14.3, to file an Affidavit of Compliance with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel within 25 days after being suspended, stating that he had complied with his duties on suspension and notified clients and opposing counsel. Mr. Pak never filed the affidavit.
On January 8, 2008, Mr. Pak met with the defendant’s lawyer at the home of the clients to examine documents which had belonged to the decedent, including earnings data and financial records. After reviewing the documents, Mr. Pak and opposing counsel briefly discussed settlement. Mr. Pak did not disclose his suspension to opposing counsel and gave no indication that he was unable to represent the clients. Mr. Pak also never told the clients that he had been suspended, and did not notify the court of his suspension. In April or May 2008, the clients tried to contact Mr. Pak after he received information that opposing counsel wanted to depose him for a second time. Mr. Pak never responded to clients’ repeated calls and e-mails. On April 17, 2008, defense counsel filed a declaration with the court stating that to his knowledge, Mr. Pak had represented the plaintiffs since the complaint was filed in September 2006, including on January 8, 2008, when Mr. Pak and defense counsel’s associate met to discuss the clients’ case. In his declaration, counsel stated he had recently learned Mr. Pak had been suspended on January 4, 2008, and sought guidance from the court on how to proceed. On April 25, 2008, WSBA opened a grievance against Mr. Pak.
In late May 2008, the clients hired a new attorney, who tried repeatedly to contact Mr. Pak to obtain client’s file, but was unable to reach Mr. Pak and never received the file. On June 18, 2008, WSBA Disciplinary Counsel subpoenaed Mr. Pak to appear and produce documents for a deposition to be held July 1, 2008, to cover the WSBA grievance and another grievance filed in February 2008. Disciplinary counsel informed Mr. Pak that the deposition would be cancelled if he provided the documents requested in the subpoena by June 27, 2008, and if disciplinary counsel confirmed in writing that the response was complete. On June 27, 2008, Mr. Pak delivered documents to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel related to the February 2008 grievance, but did not otherwise respond to either grievance. In a handwritten letter, Mr. Pak requested a continuance of the deposition until the week of July 8, 2008. Because he failed to provide documents or respond to the allegations, disciplinary counsel did not grant Mr. Pak’s request for a continuance and the deposition took place; however, Mr. Pak was given an opportunity to provide a “full and complete response” to the grievances by July 31, 2008. Mr. Pak did not provide any further response.
Mr. Pak’s conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; RPC 1.16(d) requiring that, upon termination of representation, a lawyer 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; RPC 5.5(a), prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; RPC 5.8(a), 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(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; 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 (here ELC 1.5, 5.3(e), 5.3(f), 14.1, 14.2, and 14.3).
Kevin M. Bank represented the Bar Association. Mr. Pak did not appear. Frederic G. Fancher was the hearing officer. |