| Description: |
James R. Watt (WSBA No. 12177, admitted 1981), of Issaquah, has been suspended for two years by order of the Supreme Court approving a stipulation, effective May 29, 2002. This discipline is based on his practicing law while his license was suspended, conflicts of interest and lack of diligence in representing clients. These acts occurred in 1996 through 1998.
Matter 1: In December 1997, the Supreme Court suspended Mr. Watt’s license to practice law for failure to comply with the Continuing Lawyer Education requirements. Despite several notifications from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Mr. Watt continued to practice law while his license was suspended. Mr. Watt’s conduct violated RPCs 5.5(a), prohibiting lawyers from practicing law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulations; 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and RLD 8.2 (now ELC 14.2), prohibiting lawyers from continuing to practice when their licenses are suspended.
Matter 2: In 1989, Mr. Watt began representing a client in a condominium development project. Part way through the project, Mr. Watt agreed to oversee the construction. Mr. Watt did not fully disclose the terms of the business agreement to the client in writing. Mr. Watt also did not allow the client an opportunity to seek independent counsel. Mr. Watt’s conduct violated RPC 1.8, prohibiting lawyers from entering a business transaction with a client, unless the terms are fair to the client, the client consents in writing after a full disclosure, and the client is given a reasonable opportunity to seek independent counsel.
Matter 3: In March 1996, Mr. Watt agreed to represent a husband and wife in a potential lawsuit regarding a home sale. The clients sold their home and shortly thereafter, the roof began leaking. In April 1996, the buyers sued the clients for the cost of replacing the roof. By this time, the husband had been transferred to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The husband sent a letter to the court requesting relief under the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act. In July 1996, the wife was served with a default judgment. Mr. Watt told the clients he would file a motion to vacate the default. Mr. Watt told the clients that a hearing was scheduled for November 12, 1996, but in fact, he never filed the motion. On November 19, 1996, the clients learned that Mr. Watt’s phone was disconnected. Mr. Watt’s conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients and 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters.
Matter 4: In 1992, Mr. Watt agreed to represent a client in a defamation suit. Mr. Watt filed the lawsuit in 1992 and the court set trial for December 1994. The court later struck this trial date because neither side had conducted any discovery. Mr. Watt did not take any other action on the client’s case until after the client filed the grievance with the Bar Association. The court re-set trial for late 1996. Again, defendant’s counsel filed a motion to strike the trial date because no discovery had been conducted. Mr. Watt did not attend the hearing and the court granted the motion and assessed attorneys fees. Mr. Watt’s conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; and 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters.
Leslie Allen represented the Bar Association. Frank R. Siderius represented Mr. Watt. Edward Dunkerly was the hearing officer.
|