| Description: |
Ronald Anthony Gomes (WSBA No. 31074, admitted 2001), of Lacey, received two reprimands following approval of a stipulation by a hearing officer on September 7, 2010. This discipline was based on conduct in two matters involving failure to act diligently and failure to communicate.
Matter No. 1: Mr. Gomes represented Client A in a contentious child custody and support modification matter. Client A became embroiled in a dispute with her ex-husband as to whether she would deliver the children to him, or whether he would pick up the children at her house. After opposing counsel faxed Mr. Gomes notice of a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to be heard the following morning at the court’s ex parte calendar if Client A did not deliver the children to her ex-husband that evening, Mr. Gomes made no attempts to inform Client A of opposing counsel’s motion and failed to appear at the following morning’s ex parte calendar to oppose the motion. As a result, the court granted the request for a TRO and assessed $1,000 in attorney’s fees against Client A.
Matter No. 2: After appearing in a dissolution matter on behalf of Client B, Mr. Gomes failed to respond to opposing counsel’s letters and telephone calls concerning pretrial and discovery matters. Mr. Gomes failed to respond to discovery requests or to appear for a hearing on opposing counsel’s motion for discovery. He further failed to respond to opposing counsel’s attempts to set a CR 26(i) conference to resolve discovery issues or to a motion to compel interrogatory answers. After the court granted opposing counsel’s motion to compel, Mr. Gomes continued to fail to produce the interrogatory answers. When Mr. Gomes appeared for Client B’s dissolution trial, the judge refused to allow Mr. Gomes to put on evidence and granted all of the relief sought by the opposing party because of his failure to comply with discovery. Subsequently Mr. Gomes filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals as being untimely.
Mr. Gomes’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; and 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 required by these 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 when the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules or other law, and explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Leslie C. Allen represented the Bar Association. Mr. Gomes represented himself. Frederic G. Fancher was the hearing officer. |