| Description: |
Seattle lawyer Charles L. Smith (WSBA No.5357, admitted October 1973) has been ordered suspended from the practice of law for a period of 60 days pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Supreme Court on May 8, 1997. The discipline is based upon Smith's neglect of a civil matter, which resulted in the dismissal of his client's lawsuit after the statute of limitations had passed, in violation of RPC 1.3 and RPC 3.2. The discipline is also based upon Smith's failure to timely inform his client of scheduled depositions and interrogatories requiring the client's response, failure to respond to his client's requests for information, and failure to inform his client about the dismissal of the lawsuit, in violation of RPC 1.3, RPC 1.4, RPC 3.2, and RPC 3.4(d).
In 1988, Smith agreed to represent the injured passenger of a car that was struck by another vehicle. Following some failed attempts to settle the client's claim, Smith filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court on November 5, 1990, three years to the day after the accident. Smith received a copy of the King County Superior Court case schedule, which required a Confirmation of Joinder of Parties, Claims, and Defenses to be filed by April 15,1991; however, none was filed. On May 9, 1991, the court issued an Order to Appear for Failure to Follow Civil Case Schedule/Order of Dismissal. The order set an appearance date of June 13, 1991, and stated that if the parties failed to appear, the case would be dismissed without further notice. Neither Smith nor defense counsel appeared at the hearing. Therefore, an order was entered dismissing the action on June 13, 1991. Smith did not learn of the dismissal until November 1992, at which time he attempted to note the case for trial. The Court Clerk's office advised Smith that due to the June 13 order, it was necessary to bring a motion to vacate the dismissal and reinstate the case before attempting to note the case for trial. Smith observed court calendars during which such motions were argued, but he did not file any motions because he believed it would be futile. Nor did Smith inform his client that the lawsuit had been dismissed. In spring 1993, the client wrote to Smith asking him for information regarding the case; however, Smith did not respond. It was not until the client hired another lawyer that the client learned the suit had been dismissed.
Prior to the dismissal of the case, Smith also failed to timely inform his client of deposition notices and interrogatories and delayed the discovery process by repeatedly seeking continuances from opposing counsel over the course of a year.
Lawyer Charles L. Smith represented himself. The Bar Association was represented by Marsha A. Matsumoto.
|