| Description: |
Julie A. Vance (WSBA No. 32189, admitted
2002), of Goldendale, was ordered to receive a
reprimand following approval of a stipulation
by the Disciplinary Board on April 5, 2011.
This discipline is based on conduct involving
failure to provide competent representation,
failure to communicate, and conflicts of
interest.
Ms. Vance was appointed to represent
Clients A and B on criminal charges arising
from a hunting incident. Ms. Vance failed to
obtain their written consent to the conflict of
interest in her representation of both clients.
Ms. Vance also provided each client with discovery
received from the prosecutor, without
making appropriate redactions or obtaining
agreement from the prosecutor, in violation
of CrRLJ a.7(g)(3).
The charges against Client A were dismissed
without prejudice. Ms. Vance failed
to explain to him that the charges could be
re-filed against him. Ms. Vance did not obtain
written consent to her continued representation
of Client B from Client A. She continued
to discuss Client B’s case in the presence of
Client A. During Client B’s trial, Ms. Vance
called Client A as a witness, without advising
him that his interests might be adverse to
those of Client B or that he could assert his
right against self-incrimination. During his
testimony, Client A incriminated himself,
which resulted in the prosecutor re-filing
charges against him.
Ms. Vance’s conduct violated RPC 1.1,
requiring a lawyer to provide competent
representation to a client; RPC 1.4, requiring
a lawyer to explain a matter to the extent
reasonably necessary to permit the client
to make informed decisions regarding the
representation; RPC 1.6, prohibiting a lawyer
from revealing information relating to the
representation of a client unless the client
gives informed consent; RPC 1.7, prohibiting
a lawyer from representing a client if the
representation involves a concurrent conflict
of interest unless the lawyer reasonably
believes that he or she will be able to provide
competent and diligent representation to
each affected client, the representation is not
prohibited by law, the representation does not
involve the assertion of a claim by one client
against another client represented by the lawyer
in the same litigation, and each affected
client gives informed consent, confirmed in
writing; and RPC 1.9, prohibiting a lawyer who
has formerly represented a client in a matter
from thereafter representing another person
in the same or a substantially related matter
in which that person’s interests are materially
adverse to the interests of the former client unless
the former client gives informed consent,
confirmed in writing.
Debra J. Slater represented the Bar Association.
Patrick C. Sheldon represented
Ms. Vance. |