| Description: |
Spokane lawyer F. Dale Jurdy (WSBA No. 16030, admitted 1986) has been ordered censured by the Disciplinary Board, pursuant to a stipulation to discipline, approved by the Disciplinary Board August 19, 1997. The discipline is based on neglect of a client’s matter regarding residential placement of children. In mid-August 1992, the client’s ex-husband, a Spokane resident, refused to return their two children to the care of the client, who resided near Olympia, at the conclusion of the children’s summer visitation. The ex-husband instead petitioned the Spokane Superior Court for primary residential placement (custody) of the children. The court ordered temporary placement of one child with the ex-husband, ordered an immediate visit between that child and the client, ordered immediate return of the other child to the client’s care, and appointed a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) to prepare a report regarding appropriate residential placement. With the assistance of another lawyer, the client successfully petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain release of the children from the father. After visitation with the one child, that child was returned to the ex-husband pursuant to the court’s order for temporary placement. On September 28, 1992, the client hired Jurdy (and delivered a $1,000 advance-fee deposit) to represent her in defending against the ex-husband’s petition for placement of the children with him and to bring a contempt motion to recoup the costs of the habeas corpus proceeding. The client was concerned that the ex-husband’s recent deep involvement in a fundamental religious faith, and his incessant phoning of the children when in her care, was leading to a sort of "programming" of the children against their mother, who was not of that faith. The client therefore specifically requested that Jurdy subpoena the ex-husband’s telephone records and that he speak to one or more of the religious-influence experts she had located, about the possibility of providing expert testimony at hearing. The client terminated Jurdy’s services July 29, 1993. A hearing had never been held nor a GAL report ever filed. During the period of representation, Jurdy did not bring a contempt motion, did not attempt to subpoena or request production of the ex-husband’s phone records, did not conduct any formal discovery, did not investigate or gather information to defend against the ex-husband’s petition (except to write one letter to the children’s school principal), did not advise the client that delay in bringing her case to hearing would adversely impact her position, did not take action to compel preparation of the GAL report or bring the GAL’s delay to the court’s attention, did not note the case for trial, and did not take steps to resolve the case without hearing. In addition, Jurdy did not return numerous phone calls from the client and did not attend office appointments with the client. After the representation was terminated, Jurdy removed the $1,000 advance-fee deposit from his trust account and paid it to himself as fees, although he had never provided an accounting of time or costs or the method of calculating his fee to the client. By failing to communicate with, and advise, the client, Jurdy violated RPC 1.2(a), 1.3, and 1.4. By failing to investigate or develop the client’s case or bring it before the court, Jurdy violated RPC 1.3. By failing to timely account for the client’s advance fee deposit or provide the manner of calculating his fee and by failing to remove fees from his client trust account as earned, Jurdy violated RPC 1.14. Jurdy will pay restitution to the client of $1,000 plus interest from January 1, 1994. Disciplinary counsel Joy McLean and Julie Shankland represented the Bar Association; Lynn McKinney represented the respondent. |