| Description: |
Gregory E. Grahn (WSBA No. 20312, admitted 1991), of Lakewood, was suspended for sixty days by order of the Supreme Court dated June 19, 2001approving a stipulation. This discipline is based on his practicing law while his license was suspended in 1999 and lack of diligence and communication with two clients in 1998.
Matter 1: On July 19, 1999, the Supreme Court suspended Mr. Grahn’s license to practice law for failing to comply with the Admission to Practice (APR) 11 duty to report Continuing Legal Education credits. Although the Supreme Court notified Mr. Grahn of the suspension, he stated he did not receive this notification. On August 19, 1999, an Office of Disciplinary Counsel investigator contacted Mr. Grahn in court, notified him of the suspension and provided him a copy of the court order. Mr. Grahn knew of his duties to notify his clients of his suspension, but believed he did not have to comply because he would be reinstated quickly. After completing his CLE requirements and paying the late fee, Mr. Grahn assumed that his license to practice law would be automatically reinstated to active status. The Supreme Court reinstated Mr. Grahn’s license to active status on September 8, 1999. Mr. Grahn represented clients while his license to practice was suspended from July 19, 1999 through September 8, 1999. He also failed to notify his clients of his suspension and file the required affidavit of compliance. This conduct violated RPCs 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and 1.15(a)(1) stating that a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation results in a violation of the RPCs; and RLDs 8.2, prohibiting a suspended lawyer from continuing to act as a lawyer; 8.1, requiring suspended lawyers to notify client’s of the lawyer’s inability to act; and 8.3, requiring lawyers to file an affidavit of compliance regarding the duties in Title 8.
Matter 2: In December 1997, Mr. Grahn agreed to represent the mother in an on-going marriage dissolution action. The client gave Mr. Grahn her only copy of the scheduling order showing that trial was set for March 4, 1998. Mr. Grahn requested a continuance, but the court denied the request. Mr. Grahn did not meet with the client after mid-February and did not tell her when the trial would begin. Neither Mr. Grahn nor the client appeared for the trial. The client learned from her daughter that the trial had occurred and retained another lawyer to set aside the default. Mr. Grahn’s conduct in this matter violated RPC 1.4(a) requiring lawyers to keep clients’ reasonably informed of the status of their matters.
Matter 3: In November 1997, Mr. Grahn agreed to represent the father in a marital dissolution action. After several hours, the client’s deposition was continued to September 9, 1998. On September 8, 1998, Mr. Grahn notified opposing counsel that his client would not appear. Opposing counsel noted a motion to compel the client’s attendance and impose sanctions. Opposing counsel continued the motion at Mr. Grahn’s request, but rescheduled for a date Mr. Grahn stated he would not be available. The day prior to the motion hearing, Mr. Grahn sent a letter to opposing counsel and to the judge indicating he was not available for the motion. Mr. Grahn did not file a response to the motion or formally request a continuance. The court struck the client’s pleadings and imposed $975 in attorney’s fees. Opposing counsel then filed a motion for an order of default. Mr. Grahn appeared and orally requested that the judge reconsider his earlier order striking the client’s pleadings. The court denied the reconsideration request and entered the findings of fact and decree presented by opposing counsel. Mr. Grahn’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients.
Anne Seidel represented the Bar Association. Clint P. Johnson represented Mr. Grahn.
|