| Description: |
Mark D. Mestel (WSBA No. 8350, admitted 1978), of Everett, received a reprimand based on a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on July 25, 2001. The discipline is based upon his failure to avoid conflicts of interest between several criminal defendants in one matter from 1993 through 1997.
In 1993, four people jointly purchased land for a marijuana grow operation. Only one name was placed on the title, to limit risk to the others. The group established a small grow operation in the house, and began construction of a barn to house a larger grow operation.
In February 1994, one of the original four dismantled the operation and moved off the property. Later, a new person was recruited to move into the house and tend the in-house operation. The new operation was set up in the barn. In May 1994, when fire broke out at the property, law enforcement learned of the grow operations.
One of the original four, (client A), whose business truck was on the property at the time of the fire, contacted Mr. Mestel to represent him in any criminal investigation into the grow operation. Mr. Mestel met with all five people involved in the operation as a group, not knowing that the property had been jointly purchased. He believed that the last person living in the house was singularly responsible for the grow operation, and that the others were concerned about forfeiture of the property.
After the first meeting, Mr. Mestel referred the property title-holder (client B) to another lawyer to handle state forfeiture and civil matters related to the property. Mr. Mestel indicated that his reputation as a criminal defense attorney who handled drug cases would send an undesirable signal to law enforcement.
In October 1994, the federal government filed a civil forfeiture action regarding the property. At client A’s request, Mr. Mestel agreed to represent client B in this matter. Mr. Mestel did not discuss conflicts of interest with clients A and B, or obtain written conflict waivers. Client A was present for most of client B’s meetings with Mr. Mestel and paid some of client B’s attorney’s fees.
In 1995, the federal government noted the depositions of both clients A and B in the civil forfeiture action. Client B discussed with Mr. Mestel whether to assert his Fifth Amendment right at the deposition. Mr. Mestel advised that if client B did this, the government would likely succeed in its forfeiture action. At the deposition in July 1995, Mr. Mestel represented Client B, who testified falsely. At the time of the deposition, Mr. Mestal did not know that the testimony was false.
When the government noted client A’s deposition, Mr. Mestel referred him to other counsel, but continued to provide some legal advice and representation until January 1996. Following the depositions, Mr. Mestel negotiated a settlement of the forfeiture action with the government. During settlement negotiations, Mr. Mestel had discussions with client A. In July 1997, the federal government filed indictments against clients A and B, and others involved in the grow operation. Client B pleaded guilty in October 1997, and client A in March 2001.
Mr. Mestel’s conduct violated RPC 1.7(b), prohibiting lawyers from representing a client if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, unless the lawyer reasonably believes that the representation will not be adversely affected, and the client consents in writing after consultation.
Joanne Abelson represented the Bar Association. David Allen represented Mr. Mestel.
|