| Description: |
Alfoster Garrett Jr. (WSBA No. 31044, admitted 2001), of Seattle, was suspended for 30 months, effective March 24, 2010, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This discipline is based on conduct involving failure to communicate, failure to deposit client funds into an interest-bearing trust account, failure to maintain complete records of client funds, failure to pay clients funds which they are entitled to receive, and dishonest conduct. The Court also imposed specific conditions on reinstatement.
Matter No. 1: In 2002, Mr. Garrett was retained by three clients to represent them in their employment discrimination claims against their common employer, a government agency. At that time, Mr. Garrett was employed as an associate attorney in a law firm, which he was planning to leave in order to open his own solo practice. Representation of the three clients was outside the firm’s practice area and conflicted with his duties to the firm; thus, Mr. Garrett met with the clients outside of work hours.
Mr. Garrett orally informed two of the clients, Ms. C and Ms. G, that payment for his legal services would occur on a contingent-fee basis, but failed to communicate how the fees would be calculated. The third client, Ms. R, was not informed of the contingent nature of Mr. Garrett’s fee until after settlement was obtained. Mr. Garrett did not have a written fee agreement with any of the three clients. Each client gave Mr. Garrett $50 for costs to be incurred in their claims, with which he opened a general office account for a small business at a bank. Mr. Garrett referred to the account as his “client account,” and instructed the three clients to deposit money for costs into the account. He did not maintain complete records of client funds in the account nor render to the clients accountings of those funds. Instead, he relied on the bank to provide information of the account’s status and required each client to maintain deposit information. In December 2002, Mr. Garrett signed a WSBA “Trust Account Declaration,” in which he denied maintaining any Washington individual (non-IOLTA) trust account.
On the same day Mr. Garrett opened the business account, he filed a lawsuit in superior court on behalf of the three clients. Mr. Garrett did not file a tort claim with respect to the clients prior to filing the civil suit action, which is a requisite against a governmental entity. Mr. Garrett litigated each of the clients’ claims individually.
Following Mr. Garrett’s instructions, Ms. R deposited $150 into the client account on March 15, 2003. Ms. R’s claim settled for $3,500. In a letter dated December 3, 2003, Mr. Garrett informed Ms. R that he would disburse the settlement proceeds, including paying for deposition costs. Mr. Garrett failed to pay the court reporter her fee for the deposition transcript until July 2007, and Ms. R did not receive the $150 she earlier deposited into his account until January 2007. Mr. Garrett was unable to account for the $150 deposited by Ms. R or the $677.75 he withheld for deposition costs from settlement proceeds. This money became commingled with other funds, some of which Mr. Garrett withdrew for his own purposes.
Ms. G’s claim was dismissed in October of 2003. Without informing his client, Mr. Garrett initially signed a voluntary withdrawal of Ms. G’s claims. He subsequently signed a dismissal with prejudice and, in December 2003, an order of dismissal prepared by defense counsel. Copies of documents related to the voluntary withdrawal and dismissals were not provided to Ms. G. In a letter to her on December 2, 2003, and in a subsequent phone conversation, Mr. Garrett told Ms. G that her claim was dismissed, but misrepresented the nature of the dismissal or that he had agreed to a dismissal with prejudice.
In 2003, the employer moved for summary judgment against Ms. C’s claim because of the failure to file a tort claim before the start of a civil action. Faced with that motion, Mr. Garrett dismissed by “nonsuit” the claim of Ms. C, and filed a tort claim. The employer offered to settle the claim by payment of $10,000 to Ms. C, but the offer was rejected at Ms. C’s direction. Another civil action on behalf of Ms. C was then filed on May 4, 2004. This action was dismissed because of improper form and service of the tort claim. While the dismissal was without prejudice, the applicable limitation period had expired.
Matter No. 2: Mr. Garrett was retained in March 2005 to represent a minor in school expulsion and juvenile court criminal proceedings. At his juvenile court trial in July 2005, the minor client was convicted on two of the three counts of assault in the fourth degree with sexual motivation. The client’s mother was dissatisfied with Mr. Garrett’s representation and discharged him by letter, dated August 2, 2005. She filed a grievance with the WSBA about Mr. Garrett on August 4, 2005.
When he was retained, Mr. Garrett provided the minor client’s mother with his business card, one side of which identified Mr. Garrett as president of the local chapter of a prominent civil rights organization. After discharging Mr. Garrett, the client’s mother attended a meeting of that organization, wrote letters to the organization’s legal department, and wrote to a prominent local civil rights activist in order to complain about Mr. Garrett. By August 2005, the organization was highly factionalized, with one side supporting Mr. Garrett. A local radio station provided a forum for the factions to each voice their positions. On August 12, 2005, Mr. Garrett took part in a live radio broadcast, during which he mentioned the full name of his minor client. After Bar disciplinary counsel contacted Mr. Garrett later in 2005 regarding the propriety of mentioning the full name of the minor client, Mr. Garrett denied having called into the live broadcast and falsely represented to the Association that the program’s host played a “CD of a prior conversation...” Mr. Garrett also wrote to Bar Association disciplinary counsel, in which he made these same misrepresentations.
Matter No. 3: In January 2005, Mr. Garrett was retained by a local group (the Alliance) whose members were concerned about portions of a proposed city ordinance. Mr. Garrett was requested to write a letter to the mayor regarding the members’ concerns and discussed the possibility of a civil action to enjoin the ordinance provisions. Mr. Garrett requested payment of a deposit for fees to be incurred, which would accrue at the rate of $200 per hour. He estimated he might require about one hour of professional time to produce the letter. The Alliance’s director made a payment of $400 and, in his transmittal letter to Mr. Garrett, directed that the check be placed in a lawyer trust account and that Mr. Garrett “not do any more work for us until we come up with your retainer and/or agreed deposit you require.” The check for $400 was deposited into the business account previously identified. On February 24, 2005, the Alliance’s director sent Mr. Garrett a check for $800 and authorized him to write a letter to the mayor. The check was deposited into Mr. Garrett’s business account. An implied fee agreement was formed on the basis of the director’s letters to Mr. Garrett. Mr. Garrett wrote to the mayor on March 28, 2005, but did not copy the letter to anyone in the Alliance.
The ordinance went into effect in early April 2005. Because the Alliance and its director believed that Mr. Garrett did not write the mayor, the director requested a refund of the $1,200 previously paid to Mr. Garrett. On April 15, 2005, Mr. Garrett denied the request for a refund in a letter, in which also enclosed a copy of Mr. Garrett’s March 28, 2005, letter to the mayor. The mayor, reacting to Mr. Garrett’s letter, did agree to seek amendment of the ordinance. On July 18, 2005, City Council voted to amend the ordinance. This news was conveyed to Mr. Garrett in a letter from the Alliance’s director, dated July 20, 2005, in which he also requested Mr. Garrett’s assistance for a member of the Alliance. On August 4, 2005, the Alliance’s director wrote to Mr. Garrett that his services were terminated and sought a refund of $600. Mr. Garrett did not provide the requested refund or provide the Alliance with an accounting or a billing; nor did he keep check registers or a running balance with respect to his client account or the Alliance’s funds. While Mr. Garrett was able to reconstruct his time providing professional services to the Alliance, he did not do that until late 2008.
Mr. Garrett’s conduct violated former RPC 1.4(a), requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; former RPC 1.5(b), requiring the lawyer, when he has not regularly represented the client, to communicate the basis or rate of the fee or factors involved in determining the charges for legal services and the lawyer’s billing practices to the client, preferably in writing, within a reasonable time after commencing representation; former RPC 1.5(c)(1), requiring that a contingent fee agreement be in a writing and state the method by which the fee is to be determined; former RPC 1.14(a), requiring that all funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law firm be deposited into one or more identifiable interest-bearing trust accounts and no funds of the lawyer be deposited therein; former RPC 1.14(b)(3), requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming into possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to his or her client regarding them; former RPC 1.14(b)(4), requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by a client the funds, securities, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive; former RPC 1.14(c), requiring lawyers to maintain interest-bearing trust accounts pursuant to the Rules and pay the interest to the Legal Foundation of Washington; and RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Marsha A. Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. Kurt M. Bulmer represented Mr. Garrett. Kelby D. Fletcher was the hearing officer.
|