| Description: |
Hyon Chun Pak (WSBA No. 24238, admitted 1994), of Tukwila, was suspended for one year, effective January 4, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following approval of a stipulation. This discipline is based on conduct in two matters involving representing clients in a court where he was not admitted, failing to monitor clients’ cases and failing to act with reasonable diligence, failing to communicate, charging unreasonable fees, and failing to protect clients’ interests.
Matter 1: In May 2003, a client hired Mr. Pak to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in an immigration matter. The client did not speak English and communicated with Mr. Pak through an interpreter. The client paid Mr. Pak $2,000 when she hired him and later paid Mr. Pak’s interpreter $3,000, which the interpreter turned over to Mr. Pak. Mr. Pak considered the funds he received from the client earned upon receipt and did not place them in a trust account. The client, however, did not understand or agree that Mr. Pak would treat the funds she provided him as earned upon receipt.
Mr. Pak filed a petition for review on the client’s behalf with the Ninth Circuit in May 2003. He paid the filing fee of $250. Mr. Pak was not admitted to practice before the Ninth Circuit when he filed the petition. Shortly thereafter, the Ninth Circuit Clerk’s office advised Mr. Pak that he needed to become admitted to that court or withdraw from representation. Mr. Pak began the process of becoming admitted to the Ninth Circuit but did not complete it, and did not withdraw from representing the client before the Ninth Circuit. The administrative record was filed in the client’s case in August 2003. Mr. Pak filed two motions for extension of time to file his appellate brief, which were granted, but he never filed the brief. The court dismissed the appeal in January 2004 for lack of prosecution. Mr. Pak did not monitor the status of the client’s case and never advised the client that her case had been dismissed. The client tried to contact Mr. Pak many times about the status of her case but generally was unable to reach him. The dismissal of the client’s case made her immediately eligible for deportation.
In November 2005, the client hired a new lawyer to represent her in her appeal. The new lawyer contacted the Ninth Circuit and learned that the client’s case had been dismissed. He then tried repeatedly to contact Mr. Pak to obtain the client’s file and sent him a notice of withdrawal and substitution. Mr. Pak received the notice, but did not sign it or otherwise respond to the new lawyer because he was angry at the new lawyer for stealing his client. The new lawyer filed a motion to reopen the client’s appeal with the Ninth Circuit on grounds that Mr. Pak had provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The Ninth Circuit granted the motion and reinstated the appeal.
Matter 2: In early 2004, a client hired Mr. Pak to file an appeal with Ninth Circuit in an immigration matter. The client did not speak English and communicated with Mr. Pak through an interpreter. The client paid Mr. Pak $3,000 to assist her in filing a brief with the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Pak considered the funds he received from the client earned upon receipt and did not place them in a trust account. The client, however, did not understand or agree that Mr. Pak would treat the funds she provided him as earned upon receipt. Mr. Pak filed a petition for review on the client’s behalf in April 2004 and paid the $250 filing fee. The petition indicated that it was filed by the client pro se, but listed Mr. Pak’s address instead of hers so that the record and other correspondence would come to him. The administrative record was filed in July 2004. Mr. Pak took no action in the case. The court dismissed the appeal in September 2005 for lack of prosecution. Mr. Pak did not monitor the status of the client’s case. The client tried to contact him many times about the status of her case, but generally was unable to reach him. Mr. Pak never advised the client that her case had been dismissed. According to Mr. Pak, he did not realize that the case had been dismissed. The dismissal of the client’s case made her immediately eligible for deportation. In December 2005, the client hired a new lawyer to represent her in her appeal. The new lawyer contacted the Ninth Circuit and learned that the client’s case had been dismissed. The new lawyer tried repeatedly to contact Mr. Pak to obtain the client’s file and sent to him a notice of withdrawal and substitution. Mr. Pak received the notice of withdrawal and substitution but did not sign it or otherwise respond to the new lawyer because he was angry at him for stealing his client. The new lawyer filed a motion to reopen the client’s appeal with the Ninth Circuit on grounds that Mr. Pak had provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The Ninth Circuit granted the motion and ordered the case remanded to the Bureau of Immigration Appeals.
Mr. Pak’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; former RPC 1.4, requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; RPC 1.5(a), requiring a lawyer’s fee to be reasonable; former RPC 1.15(a)(1), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation will result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; former RPC 1.15(d), requiring a lawyer to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned; RPC 5.5(a), which prohibits lawyers from practicing law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; and RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Joanne S. Abelson represented the Bar Association. Mr. Pak represented himself. |