| Description: |
Lawyer Delwyne H. Clark of Tacoma and Olympia (WSBA No. 4682, admitted 1972) has been ordered disbarred by order of the Supreme Court effective September 5, 1997. The order was entered after a default disciplinary hearing and automatic review by the Disciplinary Board and Supreme Court. The discipline is based upon Clark’s abandonment of his practice, which resulted in his failure in more than 20 cases to diligently represent and keep clients informed about the status of their legal matters, his failure to properly withdraw from representing those clients, his improper acceptance and retention of legal fees for services he did not provide, and his conviction of two counts of misdemeanor theft from clients. It is also based on his lack of competence, lack of diligence, and failure to communicate in three other client matters, his unauthorized agreement to dismiss one client’s lawsuit, and his unfitness to practice law.
Abandonment of Practice and Criminal Conviction — In January 1994, Clark closed his Olympia law office without notifying more than 20 clients with active matters or returning those clients’ files and unearned fees. In connection with the abandonment of his practice, Clark was initially charged with eight counts of felony theft for accepting and retaining fees without performing the work for which he was retained, and on February 16, 1996, he pleaded guilty to two counts of third degree theft. These actions violated RPCs 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, and 8.4(b) and (c), and subject Clark to discipline pursuant to RLD 1.1(i).
Other Client Matters — In three other separate matters, a collection case, a dissolution case, and a personal injury case, Clark failed to diligently pursue his clients’ interests and did not keep his clients adequately informed about the status of their matters. This resulted in disruption of one client’s negotiated payment schedule on a debt, entry of a default decree of dissolution in another client’s case, and the unauthorized dismissal of the third client’s personal injury suit. These actions violated RPCs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5, and subject Clark to discipline pursuant to RLD 1.1(i).
Unfitness to Practice — Based on the above acts of misconduct, and on Clark’s history of discipline (both a Censure and a Reprimand for neglect of client matters and a Suspension for failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation), Clark was also found to have demonstrated unfitness to practice law. This subjects Clark to discipline pursuant to RLD 1.1(p). Additionally, Clark’s failure to file an answer to the formal disciplinary charges against him subjected him to discipline pursuant to RLD 1.1(j).
The hearing officer was Judith Mandel of Port Orchard. Respondent did not participate in the proceedings. The Bar Association was represented by Disciplinary Counsel Jean Kelley McElroy.
|