| Description: |
Stephen Thomas (WSBA No. 2388, admitted 1968), of Burien, has been ordered to receive a reprimand, two censures, and restitution pursuant to a stipulation for discipline approved by the Disciplinary Board on January 12, 2000. The discipline is based upon his failure to diligently represent and accurately communicate with clients.
Matter 1:
In spring 1992, Mr. Thomas agreed to represent a client in a wrongful garnishment matter. A credit reporting company issued an inaccurate credit report, causing the client’s garnishment. Mr. Thomas prepared and filed the lawsuit in King County Superior Court. The case scheduling order set the trial date as September 26, 1994. Mr. Thomas did not notify his client of the trial date. In August 1994, the defendant tendered a settlement check to Mr. Thomas. Even though Mr. Thomas’s client did not agree to the settlement, he retained the check. Mr. Thomas did not prepare or appear for trial. Since neither party appeared for trial, the case was dismissed the following day. Based on inaccurate information from Mr. Thomas, the client believed that the lawsuit was still pending. In fall 1995, the client contacted the court and discovered that the case had been dismissed. The client was not able to find another lawyer to pursue his case.
Matter 2:
In 1996, Mr. Thomas agreed to represent the wife in a dissolution action. In August 1996, he obtained temporary orders that did not address two of his clients’ concerns — payment of medical bills and dental costs. In February 1998, the client met with her husband to try to resolve the case because she believed that Mr. Thomas was not making any progress. Later that month, opposing counsel sent Mr. Thomas proposed final pleadings. Mr. Thomas approved the pleadings for entry without consulting his client. Mr. Thomas believed that the proposed orders were consistent with his client’s objectives. The client learned that she was divorced in a phone call from her ex-husband. The client obtained new counsel who resolved the case with increased child support and medical payments.
Matter 3: In August 1997, Mr. Thomas agreed to represent grandparents in a case to obtain care and custody of their three-year-old granddaughter. The child’s father was incarcerated and the mother had experienced intermittent drug dependence. Mr. Thomas prepared a guardianship agreement providing that the grandparents would have physical custody and control of the child, and the mother would have visitation, so long as she remained drug free. The parties signed this agreement in September 1997. In December 1997, the grandparents asked Mr. Thomas to obtain permanent custody of the child for them. Mr. Thomas prepared pleadings, which both parties signed. He also prepared a nonparental custody petition. He never filed these documents. Based on inaccurate information from Mr. Thomas, the clients believed that the petition had been filed. The clients retained new counsel who completed the case.
Mr. Thomas’ conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring lawyers to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.2, requiring a lawyer to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; RPC 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters; and RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
Maria Regimbal represented the Bar Association. Leland Ripley represented Mr. Thomas.
|