| Description: |
Edmonds lawyer Charles M. Greenberg (WSBA No. 17661, admitted 1988) has been ordered reprimanded pursuant to a stipulation for discipline approved by the Disciplinary Board on January 27, 1998. The discipline is based on Greenberg’s conduct involving misrepresentation to a client, in violation of RPC 8.4(c), and failure to reasonably assure his partners’ conformity to the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of RPC 5.1.
Greenberg was a partner in one firm from March 1991 through April 1994, and had previously worked with partners Wade Dann and John Radder at another firm where Dann was a partner and Radder and Greenberg were associates.
In 1990, while an associate at one firm, Greenberg changed initials on a Work in Progress (WIP) report at Dann’s direction. While at the other firm, Greenberg instructed the bookkeeper to change the initials of an associate to his own, or delete the initials all together, on eight WIPs. This conduct violated RPC 8.4(c).
In 1991, a client informed Dann that he would like a specific construction claims’ analyst employed by the firm to work on his matter. This analyst was not available, so a different analyst worked on the matter. Greenberg later learned that when it came time to bill the client, Dann instructed that the initials of the requested analyst be substituted for those of the analyst who actually worked on the matter.
In February 1992, another client informed Dann that he no longer desired to have a particular analyst work on his matter. From February through June 1992, the analyst continued to work on the client’s matter and prepared law firm billing records that reflected this work. Dann and Radder altered those billing records by removing the analyst’s initials and substituting Radder’s initials to conceal the fact that the analyst continued to work on the client’s matter.
During the first half of 1992, Greenberg became generally aware of the ongoing initial-switching on client billings detailed above. Greenberg did not actively participate in the initial-switching activities of Dann and Radder. However, Greenberg did not report these activities to the Bar Association, nor did he voice his objections to the firm or take other action to stop or remedy the practice until some months after he learned of the practice. This conduct violated RPC 5.1. Greenberg’s conduct is mitigated by several factors, which affected the sanction imposed.
Respondent Greenberg represented himself. Disciplinary Counsel Sachia I. Stonefeld represented the Association.
|