| Description: |
Arthur Boelter (WSBA No. 9213, admitted 1979), of Seattle, has been suspended for six months following a hearing. The suspension became effective October 12, 1999, by order of the Supreme Court. The Court also ordered Mr. Boelter to pay restitution. The discipline was based on his threatening to disclose a client’s confidences in a suit to collect fees, falsely claiming that he had tape-recorded a conversation with his client, and charging excessive and unreasonable fees. For additional information, see Discipline of Boelter, 139 Wn.2d. 81 (1999).
In August 1990, a client revealed to Mr. Boelter confidential information regarding assets concealed from the IRS. When the client disputed Mr. Boelter’s $1,824.33 fee, Boelter wrote, "If we are not paid in full by October 15, 1991, we will file suit for the fees. You should understand that if we are forced to file suit, you forego the attorney-client privilege and I would be forced to reveal that you lied on your statements to the IRS. . . . This would entail disclosure of the tapes of our conversations about your hidden assets. There is a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. §1001, which provides for up to one year in jail for such perjury. The choice is yours." In a later speed memo, Mr. Boelter added, "I would suggest that you liquidate one of the undisclosed artworks you have and pay us by November 25, 1991." In 1992, Mr. Boelter’s firm filed suit in a county district court to collect the fees. During this litigation, Mr. Boelter signed an affidavit stating that he had tape-recorded the client, but that the tape had been either erased or destroyed. In his later response to the WSBA, Mr. Boelter stated that he had not tape-recorded his client and his letter referred to dictation tapes. Mr. Boelter did not mention the affidavit in his response. If Mr. Boelter had charged the client amounts consistent with the "Terms of Engagement" pamphlet given to the client, the bill would have been $186.48, instead of $1,824.33. Mr. Boelter charged the client interest for several months while the $800 advance fee deposit sat in the trust account. Additionally, Mr. Boelter added some monthly charges to the account that were not explained to the client.
Mr. Boelter’s conduct violated RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation by 1) sending the letters to the client falsely stating that a tape recording existed; 2) falsely stating that Boelter would be forced to reveal client confidences; and 3) signing an affidavit stating that a tape recording existed, but had been destroyed, when a tape recording had not been made. By adding unauthorized charges to the client’s bill and failing to apply the advance fee deposit to avoid interest charges to the client, Mr. Boelter’s conduct also violated RPC 1.5, requiring lawyers’ fees to be reasonable.
Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Boelter. Linda Eide represented the Bar Association. The hearing officer was Fred R. Butterworth.
|