| Description: |
Lacey lawyer Karen Lundahl (WSBA No. 8746, admitted 1978) has been suspended for one year pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court entered on October 28, 1997. The discipline is based upon failure to communicate with clients, to complete matters she was hired to handle, to formally withdraw from matters she stopped working on, to maintain a client trust account, and to cooperate with the Bar Association investigation of grievances against her.
In the first matter, Lundahl represented a client in modifying child support. At the modification hearing the commissioner granted Lundahl’s client an increase in child support at the modification hearing. The Commissioner instructed the father’s lawyer to prepare the proposed order and Lundahl to prepare the child support work sheets. The father’s lawyer mailed the proposed order to Lundahl. Lundahl never sent her client a copy, nor returned the proposed order to the father’s lawyer, nor sent the father’s lawyer a copy of the child support worksheets. Lundahl did no further work on the client’s case and did not respond to telephone calls or letters from her client or from the father’s lawyer after the hearing. The client terminated Lundahl’s services by letter. Lundahl never filed a notice of intent to withdraw with the court.
In the second matter, Lundahl was hired to modify a parenting plan and child support order. Lundahl filed the petition for modification, but neglected to file her client’s Financial Declaration. Lundahl did not arrange for service of the petition on the father, but told her client that she had done so. The client later arranged for service on her own. When the matter finally was heard, the court refused to enter a child support order because the father had not been served with the financial declaration. The client then arranged for service of a hearing notice and her financial declaration and child support work sheet. At the new hearing, the commissioner granted the client a support increase, but gave the father additional time to file an objection to the order. The father filed an objection which the client faxed to Lundahl. Lundahl told the client that she would set a hearing. Lundahl did not set a hearing, did no further work on the client’s case, and Lundahl did not communicate with the client despite repeated calls and a letter from the client. One client paid Lundahl $530 during this period, $200 of which was designated as a minimum charge in the fee agreement. The remaining $330 of the funds was an advance fee or advance fee and cost deposit, but was not deposited in a trust account. A second client paid Lundahl $230 by check. This payment included $30 for a filing fee. Lundahl did not deposit the check in a trust account. A third client paid Lundahl $600 as an advance fee and cost deposit. Lundahl did not deposit any of the $600 in a trust account. A fourth client paid Lundahl $485 in cash, $160 of which was forecasts. None of this payment was deposited in a trust account.
The Bar Association asked Lundahl to respond to five separate grievances. Lundahl did not respond to any of the letters from the Bar Association. Lundahl was personally served with a subpoena duces tecum for a deposition, but Lundahl did not appear for the deposition. Lundahl’s deposition was rescheduled. Lundahl was finally deposed pursuant to RLD 2.8(b). The subpoena duces tecum required Lundahl to bring the complete file and any documentation relating to her representation of one grievant. Lundahl brought the grievant’s case file but informed Disciplinary Counsel that one document was missing from the file and that she would forward that to her. She did not forward it. Lundahl did not respond to subsequent letters requesting that she provide additional documents that the grievant alleged were in Lundahl’s possession. Lundahl was subpoenaed for a second deposition, but Lundahl did not appear for this deposition and Lundahl failed to respond to additional requests for information by the Bar Association.
Lundahl violated RPC 1.4(a) (communication) by failing to respond to reasonable requests for information about her clients’ cases.
Lundahl violated RPC 1.15 (terminating representation) by failing to file a Notice of Intent to Withdraw as required by that rule and otherwise failing to protect her clients’ interests after being discharged. Lundahl violated RPC 1.3 (diligence) by failing to complete her clients’ cases and otherwise failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing her clients. Lundahl violated RPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty) by giving a client information about her case and the work performed by Lundahl that was not accurate. Lundahl violated RPC 1.14(a) (preserving client funds) by failing to maintain funds belonging to her clients in a client trust account. Lundahl violated RLD 2.8 (a) (duty to furnish prompt response) by failing to respond to the Bar Association’s requests for information regarding grievances filed against her and by failing to comply with the subpoenas duces tecum requiring her appearance at two depositions. The hearing officer was James Buckley of Seattle. Respondent did not appear at the hearing either personally or through counsel. The Bar Association was represented by Disciplinary Counsel Anne Seidel.
|