| Description: |
Jerold Weidenkopf (WSBA No. 12438, admitted 1982), of Tacoma, has been disbarred following a default hearing, by Supreme Court order effective August 31, 1999. The discipline is based upon neglect of two client matters and failure to cooperate with a WSBA disciplinary investigation.
Matter 1. Mr. Weidenkopf represented defendants in a lawsuit. The trial date was set for June 10, 1996, and the clients instructed Mr. Weidenkopf to proceed to trial. On June 3, 1996, without notice to the clients, Mr. Weidenkopf filed motions to withdraw and continue the trial date. Mr. Weidenkopf argued to the court that he had a conflict of interest that would prevent him from going to trial, but would not prevent him from continuing settlement negotiations. He did not have a conflict of interest. The court granted the motion to withdraw, but denied the motion to continue the trial date. Mr. Weidenkopf did not notify his clients of his withdrawal or of the trial date. No one appeared for the clients at trial and the court entered a $275,056 judgment against them. Mr. Weidenkopf’s conduct violated RPC 3.3(a), prohibiting knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to the tribunal; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; RPC 1.4, requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and RPC 1.15(b), requiring a lawyer to follow appropriate procedure in withdrawing from a client’s case.
Matter 2. Mr. Weidenkopf represented the husband in a dissolution action filed by the wife. The client told Mr. Weidenkopf that the wife was pregnant, but that he may not be the child’s father. Mr. Weidenkopf did not raise this issue in pleadings or negotiations. Mr. Weidenkopf told the client that he did not need to appear for trial. No one appeared for the client at trial, and the court ordered that he pay child support. Mr. Weidenkopf signed the child support order and parenting plan ordered by the court. The client called to find out about the trial and to obtain copies of the final orders. Mr. Weidenkopf did not return many of the client’s calls and told him to get copies of the orders from the court file. The orders were not available from the court file for several months. Mr. Weidenkopf’s conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to clients; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; and RPC 1.4, requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
WSBA disciplinary counsel requested that Mr. Weidenkopf respond to three separate grievances. When Mr. Weidenkopf failed to respond within 30 days, disciplinary counsel notified him that his response was overdue and that a deposition would be scheduled if he failed to respond. Mr. Weidenkopf did not respond to the second letter and attempted to evade service of the subpoena. A WSBA investigator personally served Mr. Weidenkopf with a subpoena duces tecum for the deposition. The afternoon prior to the deposition, Mr. Weidenkopf faxed two letters to the WSBA requesting additional information and guidance about one of the matters. Disciplinary counsel left a phone message for Mr. Weidenkopf that afternoon, indicating that his appearance was still required. Mr. Weidenkopf did not appear at the deposition. He faxed a letter that morning stating that he could not attend the deposition due to severe allergies and extreme drowsiness caused by medication. Although Mr. Weidenkopf agreed to reschedule the deposition, he did not. The WSBA notified Mr. Weidenkopf that a new grievance had been opened against him for failure to cooperate in the disciplinary investigations. The WSBA personally served Mr. Weidenkopf a second time, and he again failed to appear for the deposition. The day prior to the deposition, Mr. Weidenkopf requested that he be excused from the deposition for medical reasons. Disciplinary counsel requested that Mr. Weidenkopf sign medical releases. He did not respond to this request. Mr. Weidenkopf’s conduct violated RLD 2.8(a), requiring lawyers to promptly respond to any inquiry or request made pursuant to the RLDs for information relevant to grievances of matters under investigation concerning conduct of a lawyer.
Mr. Weidenkopf represented himself. Christine Gray represented the Bar Association. The hearing officer was Jack Rosenow.
|