| Description: |
Christina S. Denison (WSBA No. 25096, admitted 1995), of Bellevue, was disbarred, effective December 27, 2010, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on conduct involving failure to provide diligent representation, abandonment of practice, failure to communicate, and failure to comply with duties imposed by the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct.
In March 2006, a client hired Ms. Denison to represent her in removal proceedings in an immigration matter after the client’s Application for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was denied. The client paid Ms. Denison a $3,000 non-refundable flat fee. On July 31, 2006, Ms. Denison appeared on the client's behalf at the hearing in the removal proceedings, but had not yet submitted a FOIA request. At that hearing, Ms. Denison requested the immigration court to perform a de novo review of the TPS denial and informed the court that she would file the FOIA request for the TPS file. The Court set the next hearing for January 8, 2007, giving Ms. Denison five months to obtain the documents in her FOIA request.
In August 2006, Ms. Denison moved her office. She informed her client of the new address. However, around this time period, the client began having difficulty reaching her. The client, and others on her behalf, made multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact Ms. Denison in order to obtain information about the case.
The client’s employer sent the client a letter requesting information about her immigration status, which the client copied and mailed to Ms. Denison. The client never received a response. Sometime after July 2006, Ms. Denison submitted the FOIA request.
Ms. Denison had not yet received the requested documents by the time of the January 8, 2007 hearing. She asked the court for a continuance, which the court denied because Ms. Denison had not tried to expedite or compel the Government to honor the FOIA request. The court further found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the client's TPS request de novo and that nothing in the FOIA request would provide the court with jurisdiction. The court found the client ineligible for any other form of relief, granted voluntary departure in lieu of removal, and ordered the client to pay a voluntary departure bond.
In February 2007, Ms. Denison appealed the client's case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Ms. Denison did not inform the client that she filed an appeal on her behalf. In March 2007, Ms. Denison moved her office. Again, she communicated her address change to the client, who met once with her at her office’s new location. The client attempted to meet with Ms. Denison a second time, but Ms. Denison refused to meet with her. Thereafter, communication with Ms. Denison became increasingly difficult for the client. Ms. Denison did not respond to the client’s numerous telephone messages.
In late 2007, while the appeal was pending, a favorable decision in another immigration case gave the Immigration Court judges authority to issue decisions on TPS applications, and the Government filed a motion to remand the client's case to the immigration court. The BIA remanded the client's case and the immigration court sent Ms. Denison a notice of hearing in the client's removal proceedings, scheduled for February 3, 2010. Ms. Denison did not inform her client of this hearing and continued to ignore requests for information. In August 2009, Ms. Denison moved from her office without leaving any notes, contact information, or a forwarding address. At some point, Ms. Denison disconnected her office telephone.
By November 2009, the client hired a new lawyer to handle her immigration matter. The new lawyer did not know the status of the case, was not aware of the February hearing, and was unable to send Ms. Denison a copy of his motion to substitute counsel. Ms. Denison provided the client with her client file and a transmittal letter indicating that she could no longer represent her. However, the file was not complete and did not clearly indicate whether the Government ever complied with the FOIA request. On February 3, 2010, the client and her new lawyer appeared at the master calendar hearing. Despite the fact that she was still counsel of record, Ms. Denison did not appear at the hearing.
The client subsequently filed a grievance against Ms. Denison. Ms. Denison’s failure to update the Bar Association with her address or other contact information resulted in her failing to respond to the Bar Association’s request for a written response to the client’s grievance.
Ms. Denison’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, promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; 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.
Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Ms. Denison did not appear either in person or through counsel. Julian C. Dewell was the hearing officer.
|