| Description: |
Charles L. Smith (WSBA No. 5357, admitted 1973), of Bellevue, was disbarred, effective September 17, 2010, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This discipline was based on conduct involving failure to act diligently in representing a client, failure to communicate, trust account irregularities, failure to properly supervise non-lawyer staff, fee splitting, the unauthorized practice of law, misrepresentations to clients, violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and dishonest conduct. Charles L. Smith is to be distinguished from Charles L. Smith, of Issaquah; Charles E. Smith, of Seattle; and Charles Z. Smith, of Olympia.
From about mid-October 2006 through March 2007, Mr. Smith was employed as a contract attorney for a business that was in fact owned by two non-lawyers. In 2006, Mr. Smith assisted the two non-lawyers in establishing a new limited liability entity whose purpose was to provide legal services. Mr. Smith assisted in transferring the legal work being done by the former business to the new entity, and established himself as the supervisory lawyer of the new entity. Mr. Smith was aware the two non-lawyers, who were neither registered immigration specialists nor limited practice officers, were using this entity to provide legal services to clients, who were mostly recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union. During this time, Mr. Smith engaged in the following conduct:
• Allowed non-lawyer staff to have signature authority over the IOLTA account.
• Failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the entity that Mr. Smith appeared to supervise had in effect measures to ensure that the non-lawyer staff’s conduct was compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.
• Shared fees with non-lawyers and allowed them to control a business whose purpose was to provide legal services.
• Aided and abetted in the unauthorized practice of law by allowing non-lawyers to provide legal services without supervision. This included allowing non-lawyers to complete and file immigration forms, provide legal advice, complete and file false pro se dissolutions, and work on personal injury cases with little or no supervision.
• Allowed his name and likeness to be used in advertising publications describing the two non-lawyers as an “immigration specialist” and “auto accident specialist,” and allowed advertising that led clients to believe they were hiring Mr. Smith to represent them when in fact non-lawyers largely controlled the practice.
• Failed to communicate with clients, did not communicate about fees, and failed to diligently pursue three clients’ matters.
Mr. Smith’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4, requiring a lawyer to promptly inform the client of any decision of circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required by the Rules, reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished, keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer’s conduct, and explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; RPC 1.5(b), requiring the scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will be responsible to be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation; RPC 1.15A(h)(9), stating that only a lawyer admitted to practice law may be an authorized signatory an IOLTA trust account; RPC 5.3, requiring a lawyer with managerial authority in a law firm to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that a non-lawyer employee’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer, and to be responsible for the conduct of such a person; RPC 5.4, prohibiting a lawyer or law firm from sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer or from forming a partnership if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law; 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, or assisting another in doing so; RPC 7.1, prohibiting a lawyer from making a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services; RPC 7.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from stating or implying that a lawyer is a specialist in a particular field of law, except upon issuance of an identifying certificate, award, or recognition by a group, organization, or association; RPC 8.4(a), prohibiting a lawyer from violating or attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, or knowingly assisting or inducing another to do so; 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 in other respects; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and RPC 8.4(i), prohibiting a lawyer from committing any act involving moral turpitude, or corruption, or any other act which reflects disregard for the rule of law.
Joanne S. Abelson represented the Bar Association. Mr. Smith represented himself. Gregory A. Dahl was the hearing officer. |