| Description: |
W. Russell Van Camp (WSBA No. 5385, admitted 1973), of Spokane, was disbarred, effective June 16, 2011, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following an appeal. This discipline was based on conduct involving failure to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation, failure to act with reasonable diligence, failure to communicate, charging unreasonable fees, failure to explain to client how fees will be calculated, and dishonest conduct. For more information, see In re Van Camp, 171 Wn.2d 781, 257 P.3d 599 (2011).
On December 15, 2006, a client hired Mr. Van Camp to represent him in an injunction suit brought against the client in federal court. Mr. Van Camp required the client to pay to him a $25,000 initial “retainer” fee, but did not explain to the client how the fee would be calculated or whether it was refundable. The fee agreement stated, “Monies paid by the client shall be considered as earned towards the ultimate total fee, unless otherwise designated.” But the meaning of “earned retainer” was not explained, nor was the scope of representation defined. The client was not given a copy of the fee agreement.
The same day, Mr. Van Camp phoned opposing counsel. He joked that opposing counsel should send him a box of chocolates to thank him for all the money he would make on this case. Later that day, opposing counsel faxed Mr. Van Camp a letter that mentioned “the box of chocolates” remark as tongue-in-cheek, and also referenced a settlement offer and proposed permanent injunction as attached; however, the attachment was not transmitted with the letter.
The letter referenced opposing party’s desire to quickly resolve the case without further litigation. Mr. Van Camp did not respond to the letter or request the missing attachment, except to call opposing counsel and express displeasure at seeing the “chocolates” remark in writing. Little work was done on the client’s case. Mr. Van Camp’s partner represented the client in a telephonic hearing in which a preliminary injunction against the client was granted. Mr. Van Camp performed no work in response to the preliminary injunction and did not explain its significance to the client. In February 2007, opposing counsel sought a response from Mr. Van Camp to his December 15, 2006, letter. Mr. Van Camp did not respond. Mr. Van Camp participated in a telephonic scheduling conference in March 2007, with a resulting discovery deadline of September 10, 2007, but no discovery was prepared on the client’s behalf until late August.
In early March 2007, the client sent Mr. Van Camp a letter expressing his desire that the case be resolved as quickly as possible. The client also requested copies of documents filed in his case and an itemized bill showing what charges had been made against the retainer. A week later, Mr. Van Camp replied to the client that “our retainer agreement was for an earned retainer (flat fee)….” The client and his wife continued to request documents, including any document stating that the $25,000 was a flat fee. They emailed Mr. Van Camp seeking to discuss the claims against them, the steps being taken, and to obtain a copy of the retainer agreement. Mr. Van Camp did not respond.
In July 2007, Mr. Van Camp filed an answer to the complaint, which included a counterclaim against the opposing party. At an attempted mediation in July 2007, the mediator mentioned opposing party’s settlement offer. This surprised the client, who was unfamiliar with the offer. The mediation was unsuccessful. Afterwards, the client continued to email Mr. Van Camp seeking copies of anything filed and reiterating his desire to resolve the case quickly. Following receipt of the few documents that Mr. Van Camp could provide, including an altered copy of the opposing counsel’s December 15, 2006, letter, the client sought a copy of the proposed permanent injunction referenced in the letter. Mr. Van Camp could not provide this, as he never informed opposing counsel that the injunction itself was not attached.
After the client filed a grievance against Mr. Van Camp on July 31, 2007, Mr. Van Camp sent the client an apologetic letter and asked him whether he should pursue settlement. In his response to the Bar Association, Mr. Van Camp stated he had done enough work to earn most of the retainer fee. He told the Bar Association that, if the case settled, he would be happy to review the retainer fee with the client and refund some of it, but he did not offer this directly to the client.
In August 2007, the client again requested a copy of the permanent injunction and settlement offer from opposing counsel, and continued to express his desire to settle the matter. Although Mr. Van Camp now had a copy of the permanent injunction and settlement offer, he did not provide it to the client.
At the end of August 2007, Mr. Van Camp scheduled and completed one deposition. This was the only discovery completed on behalf of the client’s counterclaim. On August 31, 2007, the client fired Mr. Van Camp. The client again sought a statement of actual costs incurred and a refund of the remainder of the retainer, neither of which he received. The client contacted opposing counsel directly. The client took a copy of the proposed permanent injunction to a new attorney, who was able to settle the lawsuit. The lawsuit was dismissed in September 2007. The new attorney charged the client a total of $500. During the Bar Association investigation, Mr. Van Camp submitted differing and exaggerated time reconstructions based on hours he claimed to have worked in order to justify the amount of his fee. Mr. Van Camp had little or no work to show for it.
Mr. Van Camp’s conduct violated RPC 1.2(a), requiring a lawyer to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4(a), requiring a lawyer to promptly inform the client of any decision of circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is 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, and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; RPC 1.4(b), requiring a lawyer to
explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; RPC 1.5(a), prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an unreasonable fee; RPC 1.5(b), requiring the lawyer to communicate to the client the scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will be responsible, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation; and RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Natalea Skvir represented the Bar Association at the hearing. Joanne S. Abelson represented the Bar Association on appeal. Dustin D. Deissner represented Mr. Van Camp. Deirdre P. Glynn Levin was the hearing officer. |