| Description: |
Douglas Paul Ferrer (WSBA No. 15275, admitted 1985), of Seattle, was suspended for 18 months, effective March 1, 2010, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following approval of a stipulation. This discipline is based on conduct involving failure to act competently, lack of diligence, failure to communicate, and dishonesty.
In April 1992, Clients were involved in a head-on collision with a drunk driver (opposing party). In August 1992, Clients hired Mr. Ferrer to represent them in litigation against the opposing party. Mr. Ferrer prepared the complaint, but did not file it until April 1995. This was two days before the statute of limitations expired. Mr. Ferrer failed to file additional required pleadings. In June 1995, Clients’ insurance company offered to pay the $100,000 limit on Clients’ uninsured motorist policy. Mr. Ferrer knew about this offer, but did not communicate it to his clients. As a consequence, Clients were not aware of their insurance company’s offer until 2005.
In March 1995, Clients’ case was dismissed by the court for failure to file the required pleadings. On March 15, 1996, Mr. Ferrer appeared in court and requested that the complaint be reinstated, which the court allowed. The trial date was set for March 1997. Mr. Ferrer failed to notify Clients that a trial date had been set and did not appear for trial. By this time, the opposing party had served his prison term, left the state, and could not be located. Mr. Ferrer never sought a default judgment against him. In October 1997, the trial court again dismissed the case due to abandonment. In the following years, Clients placed between 10–15 phone calls to Mr. Ferrer, who continued to tell them their matter was pending even though he knew this was false. In 2005, Clients learned from the clerk’s office that their complaint had been dismissed in 1997 and confronted Mr. Ferrer, who told them that he would seek to have the case reinstated. Mr. Ferrer did not take any further action.
Clients hired new counsel to represent them in a lawsuit against Mr. Ferrer. Their new counsel learned that Mr. Ferrer had taken no action on the insurance company’s payment offer and was able to recover the payment. Clients sued Mr. Ferrer for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, and sought damages in the form of the interest on the $100,000. Mr. Ferrer admitted liability, but asked the court to reduce the damage amount based upon his argument that the damages should be reduced by the amount of his original contingency fee, 40 percent. The court held that Mr. Ferrer was not entitled to have the amount reduced. Mr. Ferrer’s conduct in the matter demonstrated that he did not understand the most fundamental legal procedures relating to personal injury cases.
Mr. Ferrer’s conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4(a)(3), requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter; and RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Erica W. Temple represented the Bar Association. Phillip H. Ginsberg represented Mr. Ferrer. |