| Description: |
Michael Pratum (WSBA No. 16187, admitted 1986), of Federal Way, was suspended for two years by order of the Supreme Court following a hearing, effective May 8, 2002. This discipline is based on his disclosing a client’s confidences, failure to avoid conflicts of interest, making misrepresentations to the court and splitting fees with a non-lawyer in 1992 through 1996. The sanction in this case was affected by significant mitigating factors.
In September 1992, Mr. Pratum agreed to represent a client arrested by the South King County Drug Enforcement Task Force. Prior to contacting Mr. Pratum, the client indicated that he was willing to be a confidential informant in exchange for leniency from the police. Mr. Pratum briefly met the client outside the police station prior to a meeting with a detective. During the meeting, the detective provided the client an agreement form setting out the agreement between the client and the police. Mr. Pratum and the detective negotiated changes to the wording of the agreement. During this meeting, the detective mentioned names of suspected drug dealers who were targets of police investigations. The police asked the client to provide information regarding these suspected drug dealers. Mr. Pratum represented one of the suspected dealers identified by the detective. Mr. Pratum called the suspected dealer and told him of his client’s confidential informant deal and that the police were investigating the dealer. The client testified that almost immediately after leaving the police station, he began receiving threats, both in person and by telephone.
In February 1996, Mr. Pratum petitioned for an anti-harassment order against the client. The client’s cross-petition stated that Mr. Pratum represented the client. During the hearing, Mr. Pratum denied that he represented the client.
During this time period, Mr. Pratum agreed to reduce a client’s legal fees by $100 for every new case the client referred, so long as the case was over a specific dollar amount.
Mr. Pratum’s conduct violated RPCs 1.4(b), requiring a lawyer to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make an informed decision regarding the representation; 1.6 prohibiting lawyer’s from disclosing client’s secrets and confidences without the client’s consent; 1.7(a) and (b), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation will be directly adverse to another client or materially limited by the lawyer’s own interests, without the client’s written consent; 8.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and 8.4(d), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice..
Dmitri Iglitzen and Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Leland Ripley and David Allen represented Mr. Pratum.
|