| Description: |
Philip A. Dunlap (WSBA No. 10636, admitted
1980), of Renton, was suspended for six months, effective March 19, 2012, by order of the Washington
State Supreme Court following a default hearing.
This discipline is based on conduct in two matters
involving failure to act with reasonable diligence,
failure to communicate, and failure to cooperate
in a Bar Association investigation.
Matter 1: In September 2008, Client A hired
Mr. Dunlap to represent her in her dissolution.
Between September 2008 and November 2009, Mr.
Dunlap prosecuted the matter without incident.
On November 5, 2009, the court held a status
hearing in Client A’s matter. There were only a few
issues remaining, one of which was that parties
had not agreed on the support order. On November
9, 2009, Mr. Dunlap electronically filed a notice of
settlement. He believed that parties had resolved
all the issues, but the opposing party had not
signed the support order and never did so. Mr.
Dunlap failed to advise the court, or Client A, that
the support issue was unresolved. On March 3,
2010, the court dismissed the matter because 90
days had elapsed since the notice of settlement
and neither party had advised the court that issues
remained unresolved. Mr. Dunlap knew the
court had dismissed the matter, but did nothing to
vacate the dismissal and did not tell Client A that
her case had been dismissed. Mr. Dunlap did not
tell Client A that he was unable to attend to her
matter for personal reasons and failed to respond
to her repeated phone calls.
On July 27, 2010, Client A filed a grievance with
the Bar Association based on Mr. Dunlap’s failure
to attend to her case. The Bar Association sent Mr.
Dunlap two letters requesting his response to the
grievance, which he received, but he did not respond
to the grievance. The Bar Association served
Mr. Dunlap with a subpoena commanding him to
appear for a deposition regarding Client A’s grievance
and to bring certain client files. Mr. Dunlap
appeared for the deposition and brought the file.
Matter 2: In May 2009, Client B hired Mr.
Dunlap to represent him in a dissolution action
filed by Client B’s wife. The matter proceeded
uneventfully. In February 2010, parties stipulated
to continue the trial date until August 2010. Client
B spoke to Mr. Dunlap in May 2010, at which time
Mr. Dunlap told him that they should know more
in August 2010. Client B heard nothing more from
Mr. Dunlap until he filed a grievance, which was
after the date for trial had passed. The court held
a pretrial conference on July 1, 2010. Mr. Dunlap
did not appear. The petitioner’s counsel appeared
at the conference and advised the court that the
parties were attempting to reconcile. On July 10,
2010, the petitioner’s counsel moved to dismiss
on grounds that the parties had reconciled. Mr.
Dunlap did not file a response. The court dismissed
the case on July 20, 2010. Mr. Dunlap did not advise
Client B that the case was dismissed. Client B and
his wife did not reconcile, and Client B wanted
to pursue dissolution. Client B tried to reach Mr.
Dunlap to discuss his case but Mr. Dunlap did not
return his calls. Client B ultimately had to hire new
counsel and begin the dissolution process anew.
Mr. Dunlap’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring
a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4,
requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably
informed about the status of the matter and
promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information; and RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer
from violating a duty or sanction imposed by
or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer
Conduct in connection with a disciplinary matter.
Joanne S. Abelson represented the Bar Association.
Mr. Dunlap did not appear in person or through
counsel.
Carl J. Carlson was the hearing officer. |