| Description: |
James D. Jensen (WSBA No. 25733, admitted 1996), of Bellingham, was disbarred, following a default hearing, by order of the Supreme Court, effective February 5, 2003. This discipline is based on 38 counts of misconduct involving 11 clients during 1999 through 2001.
Matters 1 and 2: In March 2000, Mr. Jensen’s firm closed its Fife office and he assumed responsibility for two clients’ bankruptcy matters. Mr. Jensen did not notify either client that the Fife office had been closed or that he had taken over responsibility for their representation. He failed to complete the required work on both cases. He failed to file required corrected schedules in one case, leading to a delay in the sale of the client’s house. In the other, Mr. Jensen placed the client’s filing fee in his business account and took no action on the case. He failed to refund the client’s money upon request. Mr. Jensen did not cooperate with disciplinary counsel’s requests for information regarding these matters.
Matters 3, 4, 5: In August 2000, Mr. Jensen agreed to assist three clients with bankruptcy matters. Mr. Jensen deposited the clients’ funds in his business account and did not complete the agreed work. He did not return the clients’ funds upon request, although he did make a partial refund to one client in January 2001. In one case, Mr. Jensen testified falsely in his deposition that he paid the client’s funds to the bankruptcy court. He also stated falsely that he filed documents to re-open the client’s bankruptcy.
Matter 6: In April 2000, Mr. Jensen agreed to represent a client in a bankruptcy petition. Mr. Jensen attended the meeting of creditors. In August 2000, the trustee filed a motion to dismiss. Mr. Jensen failed to respond to the motion and the court dismissed the client’s petition. At the courthouse on the day of the hearing, Mr. Jensen falsely told the client that the hearing had been continued until October 1, 2000. In October 2000, Mr. Jensen told the client that he had filed an appeal. The client asked for a refund when he learned from the court that Mr. Jensen had not filed an appeal. Mr. Jensen did not provide a refund.
Matter 7: In August 2000, Mr. Jensen agreed to represent a client in an uncontested marriage dissolution action. Mr. Jensen sent the client a letter stating that the dissolution would be final in ninety days. Mr. Jensen’s assistant told the client the dissolution would be final on January 6, 2001. Mr. Jensen had no further communication with the client. On May 5, 2001, believing he was divorced, the client remarried. The court finalized the dissolution on June 25, 2001.
Matters 8, 9 and 10: In late 1999 and in June 2001, Mr. Jensen agreed to represent three clients in bankruptcy matters. In each case, Mr. Jensen accepted the client’s money and did not complete the required work. In one case, the wife was discharged in bankruptcy, but the husband’s petition was dismissed. Mr. Jensen did not tell the client about the dismissal and the creditors garnished the client’s pay check. In another case, Mr. Jensen failed to list the client’s potential lawsuit against the sellers of her house. The client retained separate counsel for the claim against the sellers. Although Mr. Jensen filed a motion to re-open the bankruptcy to list the lawsuit, he failed to attend the hearing and the motion was stricken. The client’s bankruptcy was reopened and the claim against the seller settled. The client retained substitute counsel and incurred additional attorney’s fees.
Matter 11: In September 1998, Mr. Jensen agreed to represent a client in a marriage dissolution action. Mr. Jensen did not work on the client’s matter. Mr. Jensen failed to comply with the client’s requests for a restraining order. The client retained substitute counsel and requested her file. Mr. Jensen told the client he had lost the file. Mr. Jensen delivered the file to the client on August 9, 2001. The client’s trial was set for August 20, 2001 and the file contained original documents necessary for trial.
Mr. Jensen’s conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing clients; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of matters and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; 5.3, requiring lawyers with direct supervisory authority over non-lawyers to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the non-lawyer’s conduct in compatible with the lawyer’s professional obligations; 1.14, requiring lawyers to deposit client funds into trust accounts; 1.15(d), requiring lawyers, upon termination of representation, to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests; 8.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; RLD 2.8, requiring lawyers to promptly respond to disciplinary counsel’s requests for information relevant to grievances, and RLD 1.1(p), subjecting lawyers to discipline for conduct demonstrating unfitness to practice law.
Marsha Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. Mr. Jensen represented himself. Kelby Fletcher was the hearing officer.
|