| Description: |
Hari Alipuria (WSBA No. 26899, admitted 1997), of Tacoma, received a reprimand on July 26, 2002, based on a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board in May 2002. This discipline is based on his failure to competently and diligently represent two clients in 1999.
Matter 1: In 1998, Mr. Alipuria agreed to represent a client in a wrongful termination case. Mr. Alipuria filed the client’s lawsuit in federal court. In May 1999, Mr. Alipuria demanded that the client meet him at his office the next day. When the client arrived, Mr. Alipuria told the client they would be travelling to Seattle to answer questions for the opposing counsel. Opposing counsel deposed the client for five hours. Mr. Alipuria did not attend six witness depositions noted by opposing counsel. On June 24, 1999, Mr. Alipuria received opposing counsel’s summary judgment motion. On July 9, 1999, he contacted the client for phone numbers of potential declarants to support a response to the summary judgment. Mr. Alipuria was not able to contact the witnesses prior to the time the response was due. Although he prepared a response, he did not file it, because he could not contact the witnesses. The court dismissed the client’s case. Mr. Alipuria did not provide the client copies of documents upon request. He also submitted the client’s original documents to opposing counsel during discovery.
Matter 2: In April 1998, Mr. Alipuria agreed to represent the wife in a marital dissolution action. Mr. Alipuria filed the dissolution petition in November 1998. The sheriff was unable to serve the husband, but the husband sent a letter directly to Mr. Alipuria. An independent contractor employed by Mr. Alipuria signed an affidavit indicating that she served the husband, but Mr. Alipuria doubted the accuracy of the affidavit. Mr. Alipuria told the client that the dissolution would be finalized on a date less than the required 90 days after service of the petition. Then, he continued the hearing to February 10, 1999. Mr. Alipuria did not finalize the dissolution because he could not verify that the husband had been served.
Mr. Alipuria’s conduct violated RPCs 1.1, requiring lawyers to provide competent representation; 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.
Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Mr. Alipuria represented himself.
|