| Description: |
Mark A. Erikson (WSBA No. 23106, admitted 1993), of Vancouver, received two reprimands on July 26, 2002 and two years of probation based on a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board in May 2002. This discipline is based on his failure to avoid a conflict of interest,
Matter 1: In early 1999, Mr. Erikson agreed to represent two clients in a claim against a developer. In July 1999, the clients told Mr. Erikson that they could not afford to continue the litigation. Mr. Erikson decided to secure his current and future legal fees with a deed of trust on the two parcels of real property that were the subject of the litigation. Mr. Erikson did not advise the clients of the conflict of interest, nor obtain their written consent to continuation of the representation. In August 2000, the associate who had worked on the client’s case left Mr. Erikson’s office and opened his own practice. The associate settled the case. Mr. Erikson had to agree to the settlement because he held a deed of trust on the property.
Mr. Erikson’s conduct violated RPCs 1.7(b) and 1.8(a) and (j).
Matter 2: In 1999, Mr. Erikson agreed to represent a husband and wife in a damages claim against the City of Vancouver for sewer back ups. The Erikson firm filed the clients’ complaint after the statue of limitations had expired. When the associate left, the clients decided to stay with Mr. Erikson’s firm. In July 2000, Mr. Erikson sent the file to the association, who refused to accept the clients or the file. Also in July 2000, Mr. Erikson sued the builder of his home for installing faulty siding. The client is the builder’s sister. In August 2000, Mr. Erikson filed and served a notice of intent to withdraw from the client’s case. The notice states that all further correspondence should be sent to the associate, as successor counsel. The associate did not represent the clients. After filing the notice of intent to withdraw, Mr. Erikson did no further work on the case. A damage statement and interrogatory answers were due during that time. The clients were not able to find substitute counsel.
Mr. Erikson’s conduct violated RPCs 1.3, 1.15(d) and 8.4(d).
Matter 3: California lawyer K worked for Mr. Erikson from September 1999 through October 3, 2000. She was sworn in to active practice in Oregon on October 4, 2000 and in Washington on December 7, 2000. Mr. Erikson’s fee agreement with K included 50% of the hourly fees billed for her work. Mr. Erikson identified K on his letterhead as “Of Counsel-Licensed in California”. Formal Opinion 178 indicates that only lawyers who are active members of the Washington State Bar Association may be listed as “of counsel”.
|