| Description: |
Ralph E. Crear (WSBA No. 33692, admitted 2003), of Shoreline, was suspended for one year, effective September 15, 2011, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This discipline is based on conduct involving failure to safeguard client property, the practice of law while suspended, dishonest conduct, and failure to provide a complete response to a grievance.
Mr. Crear failed to pay his annual license fee for 2009 and was suspended by the Supreme Court on June 1, 2009. Mr. Crear learned of the suspension and discussed it with two Bar Association employees on June 2, 2009. He was told he must “promptly inform his current client(s), opposing counsel(s), and any relevant court(s) of the suspension issue.” To reinstate his license, Mr. Crear was required to pay the Association’s $430 annual license renewal fee plus $830 in late and reinstatement fees. In early June, Mr. Crear paid the $430 fee, but not the $830. He applied for a hardship exemption but was denied the exemption on June 4, 2009. Mr. Crear was reinstated by order of the Supreme Court on July 13, 2009, effective 3:24 p.m., and informed of the reinstatement on the same day.
From June 1, 2009, through July 13, 2009, at 3:24 p.m., Mr. Crear was not authorized to practice law in the state of Washington. In late June 2009, Mr. Crear and Client A discussed having Client A pay the $830 outstanding late and reinstatement fees necessary for Mr. Crear to reinstate his license to practice law. Mr. Crear inquired from the Bar Association whether the payment could be made by a client through a credit card, to which he was told the Bar Association would accept the payment if the services had been provided prior to the suspension and resulting fees were currently owed. On June 29, 2009, Client A’s friend paid $830 directly to the Association
on Mr. Crear’s behalf.
Mr. Crear began representing Client A in April 2009. Client was a building contractor who was trying to collect from a debtor for work he performed. Client A had hired Mr. Crear to send a demand letter to a debtor, file a lien, and defend against a restraining order petition. Mr. Crear filed the lien on Client A’s behalf on June 2, 2009. After Mr. Crear’s suspension, Client A contacted him regarding two issues: a June 18, 2009, hearing involving the restraining order, and a July 14, 2009, hearing in superior court on the debtor’s Motion to Appear and Show Cause why the lien Mr. Crear had filed should not be stricken as frivolous. The deadline for the response to
the Motion to Show Cause was noon on July 13, 2009. Mr. Crear prepared the response pleadings and gave them to Client A, who signed the pleadings pro se and took them to a copy center to be copied. Client A returned to Mr. Cear’s office with the copies, which Mr. Crear stamped and sorted for distribution to the court and opposing counsel. While at the courthouse delivering the documents, Client A called Mr. Crear and received instruction on how to file and serve the response pleadings. Client A appeared pro se at the hearing on the Motion to Show Cause, after which the court struck and released the lien.
After he was reinstated, Mr. Crear filed a Motion to Reconsider and Vacate; the court denied the motion.
Client A and Mr. Crear entered into a written fee agreement dated April 1, 2009, whereby Mr. Crear would bill Client A monthly for his services. Payment was due on receipt of the billing. Although no statements were
mailed to Client A until July 31, 2009, Mr. Crear made requests to Client A for money by phone. His first billing to Client A on July 31, 2009, was for a balance due of $747. On June 18, 2009, Client A delivered payment of $200 to Mr. Crear, thereby reducing the balance owed to $547. This was the balance outstanding when the $830 reinstatement penalty was paid on June 29, 2009. The $830 payment created a credit balance of $283 in Client A’s account, none of which was placed in Mr. Crear’s trust account.
On August 10, 2009, Client A filed a grievance against Mr. Crear with the Bar Association. Mr. Crear signed and sent a letter dated August 24, 2009, to the Bar Association stating, in part, that he informed Client A that he could not represent him on the lien matter, but that he “did however provide client with a template to develop a response.” Mr. Crear intended that the letter hide the fact he had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
Mr. Crear’s conduct violated RPC 1.15A(c)(1), requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients and third persons separate from the lawyer’s own property and to deposit and hold in a trust account funds subject to this rule pursuant to the rules; RPC 5.8(a), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in the practice of law while on inactive status, or while suspended from the practice of law for any cause; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and ELC 5.3(e)(1), requiring a lawyer to promptly respond to any inquiry or request made under these rules for information relevant to grievances or matters under investigation and furnish in writing, or orally if requested, a full and complete response to inquiries and questions.
Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Mr. Crear represented himself. John J. Tollefsen was the hearing officer. |