| Description: |
Theodore D. Silva (WSBA No. 8190, admitted 1978), of Renton, has received three reprimands based on a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board in March 2001. The discipline is based upon his failure to diligently represent three clients, failure to protect clients’ interests upon withdrawal, and failure to pay court-ordered sanctions between 1994 and 1997.
Matter 1: In February 1994, Mr. Silva agreed to represent a client in a claim against Seafirst. Mr. Silva filed a lawsuit on June 27, 1995, and extended a written settlement offer on December 22, 1995. Seafirst rejected the settlement offer and the client indicated that she wanted to pursue arbitration or a trial. Without advising the client, Mr. Silva determined that she should take a voluntary nonsuit and refile her case in district court. Mr. Silva filed the motion on April 2, 1996, and the motion was granted. Because Mr. Silva improperly drafted the motion and order, the court granted a dismissal with prejudice; Mr. Silva did not inform the client that the court had dismissed her case.
In July 1996, the client requested that Mr. Silva subpoena records, but Mr. Silva did not respond. On November 20, 1996, Mr. Silva filed the client’s lawsuit in district court. Seafirst’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss and for sanctions based on the superior-court dismissal with prejudice. The court granted the motion and imposed $815 in sanctions, which Mr. Silva paid.
Matter 2: In June 1994, a husband and wife retained Mr. Silva and another lawyer to represent them in a case against a hospital. Mr. Silva asked the clients for $500 in advance costs to have an expert review their case. Mr. Silva later advised the clients he was prepared to go forward, and sent them a contingent-fee agreement. Mr. Silva filed an administrative tort claim and then a civil suit in superior court; he did not serve the summons of complaint on the defendants. Mr. Silva failed to follow the case schedule, and the court issued an order requiring him to appear.
In January 1997, the clients filed a grievance against Mr. Silva and contacted another lawyer. Mr. Silva did not provide the clients’ file to the other lawyer. The clients wrote Mr. Silva indicating they understood that he would attend the court hearing; however, Mr. Silva failed to attend. The special master imposed $50 sanctions on Mr. Silva and continued the hearing, contingent on the case being in compliance with the scheduling order. Mr. Silva again failed to attend to the hearing, and the case was dismissed with prejudice in March 1997. The statute of limitations had expired on June 24, 1996, and Mr. Silva did not inform his clients that the case had been dismissed. On June 12, 1997, Mr. Silva forwarded the clients’ file to the new counsel.
Matter 3: In July 1994, Mr. Silva agreed to represent a client against the client’s insurance company. Mr. Silva contacted the company and obtained medical records. In August 1994, an insurance representative told Mr. Silva that the company was suspicious of the client’s claim. Mr. Silva told the client that the company was considering a fraud investigation, but assured the client that he would file a lawsuit. In November 1994, following an IME (independent medical exam), a doctor concluded that the client’s condition was "most probably the result of the accident." The client told Mr. Silva that he wanted to proceed with his claim. After the IME, Mr. Silva did little or no work on the client’s case. In November 1996, the client wrote to Mr. Silva, reminding him of the statute of limitations and Mr. Silva’s promise to file a lawsuit. The statute of limitations expired on the claim and Mr. Silva did not file suit.
Mr. Silva’s conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 3.2, requiring lawyers to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients informed of the status of their matters and to explain matters to the extent necessary to permit clients to make informed decisions; 3.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal; and 1.15, requiring lawyers to protect clients’ interests after withdrawing from representation, including delivering files to the client or substitute counsel upon request.
Timothy J. Parker represented the Bar Association. Leland Ripley represented Mr. Silva.
|