| Description: |
Peter Dirk Nansen (WSBA No. 9142, admitted 1979), of Bellingham, was ordered to receive two reprimands following approval of a stipulation by a hearing officer on March 19, 2012. This discipline is based on conduct involving failure to communicate, trust account irregularities, communicating directly with a represented person about a matter, and implying disinterest when dealing with an unrepresented person. Matter No. 1: Mr. Nansen filed a petition on behalf of Client A seeking guardianship over her boyfriend, Mr. J. Eight days later, Mr. Nansen met with Mr. J and told him that he was representing his estate and trying to help him. Mr. Nansen obtained Mr. J’s signature on documents establishing an irrevocable trust naming Client A as trustee, and transferring property into the trust. Mr. J reasonably believed that Mr. Nansen was representing his interests or that he was, at
least, disinterested. Mr. Nansen knew that the interests of Client A and Mr. J had the possibility of conflicting, but did not adequately clarify his role. The court appointed a lawyer to represent Mr. J in the guardianship proceeding. While Mr. J was represented, Mr. Nansen met twice and spoke nine times with Mr. J by telephone without obtaining authorization from his counsel to
communicate directly to him. Matter No. 2: Mr. Nansen entered into a written fee agreement with Client B that provided for a $2,500 “non-refundable fee,” but did not meet the requirements of RPC 1.5( f). Mr. Nansen received $15,637 of Client B’s funds, but did not directly deposit any of the funds into a trust account even though he had not yet earned the fees. He deposited $2,500 into his general account and deposited $13,095 into a subaccount within his general account. Mr. Nansen then subsequently disbursed $10,300 to himself for attorney’s fees without providing Client B with written notice of his intent to do so. At the end of his representation of Client B, Mr. Nansen provided Client B with an “accounting” that did not completely or accurately reflect all the transactions related to Client B’s funds. Mr. Nansen’s conduct violated RPC 1.4(a) and (b), requiring a lawyer to keep the client
reasonably informed about the status of a matter and explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; RPC 1.5(f)(2), allowing a lawyer to charge a flat fee for a specified service and not deposit it into a trust account if agreed to in advance in a writing signed by the client; 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; RPC 1.15A(c)(2), requiring a lawyer to deposit into a trust account legal fees
and expenses that have been paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred; RPC 1.15A(e), requiring a lawyer to promptly provide a written accounting to a client or third person after distribution of property or upon request; RPC 1.15A(h)(3), requiring a lawyer to give reasonable
written notice to a client before withdrawing earned fees from the client’s funds; RPC 4.2, prohibiting a lawyer from communicating about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to
do so by law; and RPC 4.3, prohibiting a lawyer, in dealing with a person who is not represented by counsel, from stating or implying that the lawyer is disinterested. Marsha A. Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. Mr. Nansen represented himself. Deirdre P. Glynn Levin was the hearing officer. |