| Description: |
Gary Evan Randall (WSBA No. 15020, admitted 1985), of Woodinville, was suspended for six (6) months, effective December 27, 2010, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following approval of a stipulation. This discipline resulted from conduct involving failure to act with reasonable diligence, failure to communicate, violations of duties, practicing law while suspended, and non-cooperation with disciplinary counsel during an investigation.
Matter #1: In August 2006, Client A hired Mr. Randall to bring contempt proceedings against her ex-husband for failure to pay her share of the equity from the sale of their marital residence as set forth in their dissolution decree. Client A expressed to Mr. Randall her concern that her ex-husband would sell assets or otherwise spend the money that was owed to her. Client A paid Mr. Randall $200 for an initial meeting and a retainer of $1,000. Over the next month, Mr. Randall failed to return any of Client A’s calls or meet with her. In October 2006, Mr. Randall sent Client A another bill, some incomplete draft form pleadings, and a draft letter to obtain a copy of Client A’s divorce decree. Mr. Randall never filed any of the pleadings, never mailed the letter, and subsequently failed to return Client A’s numerous phone calls to him. Client A terminated his services. Mr. Randall subsequently refunded to Client A the $1,000 retainer, but did not return to her the $200 for the initial meeting. In February 2007, Client A hired a different lawyer, who obtained a judgment against her ex-husband for approximately $55,000 but was unable to collect on the judgment because by that time her ex-husband had sold his business and declared bankruptcy.
Matter #2: Mr. Randall represented Client B in a boundary dispute, which settled in February 2007. As part of the settlement, the opposing party agreed to pay Mr. Randall’s clients $16,900, plant screening plants along the boundary line, and grant an easement necessary for the maintenance of Client B's septic system.
Opposing counsel timely sent Mr. Randall a check for $16,900, a notice of settlement, and a proposed draft easement for Client B to review. Client B and Mr. Randall had concerns about certain of the terms of the proposed easement, including whether the incomplete acknowledgement of the opposing party’s signatures made the easement invalid. In March 2007, Mr. Randall spoke once with Client B about the proposed easement, but did not communicate with her thereafter or communicate any suggested revisions to opposing counsel.
On March 28, opposing counsel sent to Mr. Randall a signed stipulation for dismissal that had to be filed before April 9, 2007, and a signed original easement for him to record. Mr. Randall never filed the stipulation for dismissal. On June 18, 2007, the clerk gave notice that the court would dismiss the case for want of prosecution. For over a year thereafter, Client B called Mr. Randall numerous times asking him to contact opposing counsel about the changes they wanted to the easement and wanting him to finalize the easement. Client B also sought Mr. Randall's assistance in getting the opposing party, who had put their property up for sale, to plant the screening trees per the settlement agreement. Mr. Randall took no further action regarding the easement and did not respond to Client B's efforts to contact him. Client B paid Mr. Randall $7,690 in fees in connection with the boundary line dispute. Client B, acting pro se, was unable to resolve the legal issues with the neighbors.
Non-cooperation and Unauthorized Practice of Law: In September 2008, Client B filed a grievance against Mr. Randall. Mr. Randall did not respond to the grievance or to subsequent requests from Disciplinary Counsel to submit a response. Mr. Randall did not appear for a deposition or provide a client file after being served twice by Disciplinary Counsel with subpoenas duces tecum. Mr. Randall states that he did not open the envelopes containing the requests or the subpoenas duces tecum. On January 22, 2009, the Supreme Court entered an order suspending Mr. Randall from the practice of law pending his cooperation with Disciplinary Counsel's investigation. Mr. Randall eventually responded to Client B's grievance and provided Disciplinary Counsel with his file. He was reinstated to active practice on March 6, 2009.
On January 21, 2009, Mr. Randall filed a notice of appearance on behalf of a defendant in a Superior Court matter. As set forth above, Mr. Randall was suspended by order of the Washington Supreme Court on January 22, 2009. The Court sent Mr. Randall a copy of its order informing him of his suspension. Mr. Randall states that he did not open the envelope. On January 23, 2009, disciplinary counsel sent Mr. Randall a certified letter regarding his duties on suspension, including notice that he was prohibited from practicing law. Mr. Randall received that letter, but states that he did not open the envelope. During his suspension, Mr. Randall filed an answer to the complaint in the Superior Court matter, negotiated a resolution of the case, and signed and presented the court a stipulation for dismissal. Mr. Randall did not inform his client, the court or opposing counsel that his license to practice law in Washington was suspended.
Mr. Randall’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, 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, and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; RPC 1.16(a)(1), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; 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 practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; 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.
Special Disciplinary Counsel Scott A.W. Johnson represented the Bar Association. Leland G. Ripley represented Mr. Randall. |