| Description: |
Carole Sureau (WSBA No. 21909, admitted 1992), of Snohomish County, has been ordered censured pursuant to a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on December 10, 1997. This discipline is based on Ms. Sureau’s practicing law prior to being admitted to practice in Washington, and conflicts of interest.
Ms. Sureau and her husband moved to Washington from California, where Ms. Sureau was admitted to practice in 1987. Mr. Sureau’s daughter lived in Washington. Mr. Sureau’s mother, Ms. E, was transferred to a Washington convalescent center while Mr. and Mrs. Sureau lived in California. The daughter signed a promissory note for convalescent care for Ms. E, because she lived close to the center. The daughter believed that the care would be paid for either by insurance or sale of Ms. E’s home. In May 1992, the convalescent center sued the daughter. The daughter contacted Ms. Sureau in California for advice about the lawsuit. Ms. Sureau advised the daughter and provided form pleadings for the daughter’s use. The daughter typed her answer on Ms. Sureau’s computer. Ms. Sureau advised the daughter to implead Ms. E’s insurance company, which the daughter did. These pleadings were filed July 9, 1992. On July 30, 1992, Ms. Sureau sent a copy of the pleadings to the New York State Insurance Department for service of process. The letterhead identified Ms. Sureau as a lawyer and listed her Washington address. Ms. Sureau was admitted to practice in Washington on November 5, 1992.
In early 1993, Ms. Sureau told the daughter that she planned to stop representing her, and in March the daughter retained new counsel. After this, Ms. E and Mr. Sureau were added to the lawsuit. Ms. Sureau appeared for Ms. E and her husband in the lawsuit. She filed an answer that included a claim for contribution, reimbursement and indemnity against the daughter. The daughter filed a motion to disqualify Ms. Sureau from representing Ms. E and Mr. Sureau. Ms. Sureau opposed the motion, stating that she should be allowed to remain in the case to protect her own financial interest. The court disqualified her.
Ms. Sureau’s conduct violated RPC 5.5, prohibiting practicing law in a jurisdiction where doing so violated the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; RPC 1.9(a), prohibiting a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter from representing another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client, unless the former client consents in writing after consultation and a full disclosure of the material facts; and RPC 1.7(b), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or by the lawyer’s own interests.
Julie Shankland represented the Bar Association. Ms. Sureau represented herself.
|