| Description: |
Tacoma lawyer Robert L. Hayes (WSBA No. 21239, admitted 1991) has been ordered to receive two reprimands and probation by the Disciplinary Board, which on January 26, 1998, approved his stipulation. The discipline is based on Hayes’ making unsubstantiated allegations concerning a Superior Court commissioner’s integrity in violation of RPC 8.2(a) and his failure to represent clients diligently and competently in four separate matters.
In one matter, Hayes was hired in November 1992 to obtain an antiharassment order. He filed a petition for an order for protection without his client’s signature or verification, as required by RCW 10.14. The petition was based solely on hearsay and was facially deficient. The commissioner dismissed the petition and ordered sanctions against Hayes. Hayes filed an objection to the award of sanctions. In his objection, Hayes alleged that the commissioner’s ruling was biased because he was a friend of the opposing counsel. The commissioner and opposing counsel were not friends, and the allegation was not supported by credible evidence. Hayes’ actions violated RPC 8.2(a) which prohibits a lawyer from making statements about the integrity of an adjudicatory officer with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.
In a second matter, Hayes was hired in March 1992 to represent a client in a breach of contract action. The contract did not contain a provision for attorneys’ fees, but the client could have sought statutory attorneys’ fees. Hayes did not research the issue of recovering statutory attorneys’ fees and never sought statutory attorneys’ fees. Hayes received an offer of settlement from the opposing party but did not immediately relay the offer to his client. By the time Hayes discussed the issue of submitting an offer of settlement with his client, the statutory deadline for submitting offers of settlement had expired.
In a third matter, Hayes was hired in February 1993 to represent a client in a defamation and discrimination lawsuit. During his client’s deposition, Hayes improperly made frivolous objections. Hayes permitted his client to prepare and file pleadings, including a response to summary judgment and Hayes’ own declaration, without adequately reviewing the pleadings. The pleadings were garbled and incoherent, and the court granted summary judgment to the opposing party.
In a fourth matter, Hayes was hired in August 1993 to represent a client in a marital dissolution. After reaching a settlement, opposing counsel set a hearing for the presentation of the final dissolution orders. Hayes’ client told Hayes that he strongly objected to the proposed order for the division of property because the personal property to be awarded to him was not specifically identified and listed in the order. Hayes failed to attend the hearing on behalf of his client to contest the opposing counsel’s proposed dissolution orders, and the proposed orders were entered. Hayes moved for reconsideration of the entry of the orders. The court denied the motion and sanctioned Hayes’ client. Hayes’ client paid for the sanctions, even though the sanctions were based solely on Hayes’ failure to appear at the hearing to oppose the entry of the dissolution orders. Hayes’ client did not receive personal property, worth about $5,000, which was not listed in the division of property order.
Hayes’ failure to diligently and competently represent his clients in the above-described four matters violated RPC 1.1 (requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation) and RPC 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence).
Respondent was represented by Leland G. Ripley. The Bar Association was represented by Disciplinary Counsel Jonathan Burke.
|