| Description: |
Richard K. Clyne (WSBA No. 21556, admitted 1992), of Seattle, was suspended for two years by order of the Supreme Court on March 13, 2002 following a hearing, and then disbarred effective June 19, 2002, following a second hearing. This discipline is based on his misappropriation of funds, his engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and failure to deposit client funds into a trust account from 1997 to 1999, and failure to diligently represent clients from 1999 through 2000.
Suspension Case Matter 1: In August 1999, Mr. Clyne agreed to represent the father in a parenting plan modification matter. The client’s wife had obtained a protective order limiting his visitation with the children. Mr. Clyne failed to appear for the client’s December 7, 1999 hearing. On this same day, the client signed pleadings to begin a dissolution proceeding. On December 14, 1999, Mr. Clyne told the client that the dissolution pleadings had been filed and that the mother would be served immediately. Later the client told Mr. Clyne that he wanted a separation instead of a dissolution. Mr. Clyne indicated that he would change the paperwork.. The mother was served with a dissolution petition in March 2000. Mr. Clyne did not file a petition for dissolution or a petition for separation. In March 2000, the client asked Mr. Clyne to file a motion for contempt against his wife for violation of the current parenting plan. Mr. Clyne told the client the contempt hearing was scheduled for April 4, 2000, so the client flew from California to Seattle to attend. When the client called to verify the time for the hearing, Mr. Clyne told him that the hearing date was not confirmed and the motion would have to be re-filed. Mr. Clyne actually filed the motion on April 4, 2000.
Suspension Case Matter 2: In March 2000, Mr. Clyne agreed to represent a client in a family law mediation. The parties did not reach agreement at the mediation and the opposing party set a Superior Court hearing for May 25, 2000. On the day of the hearing, Mr. Clyne told the client that the date had been changed to June 7, 2000. On the day prior to the hearing, the client called Mr. Clyne to review her response, but Mr. Clyne did not have it prepared. At the hearing, the client was found in contempt of court and sanctioned $1,000. Mr. Clyne prepared a motion for revision, but missed the 10-day deadline for filing the motion. The client requested that Mr. Clyne send a letter to opposing counsel regarding therapy for the child. Mr. Clyne did not send the letter. The client retained substitute counsel.
Mr. Clyne’s conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep their clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters; and 8.4(c) prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving misrepresentation.
Disbarment: On May 27, 1998, Dr. E. contacted a law firm (“the firm”) for assistance with an ongoing domestic relations dispute. Mr. Clyne was the lawyer directly responsible for representing Dr. E. Between May 1998 and March 1999, Dr. E made seven fee deposits to the firm in a total amount of $5,000, which were deposited into their trust account. Advanced fees were drawn down from the trust account as services were provided. As of May 5, 1999, Dr. E had a trust account balance of $220.71. No further time entries were made by Mr. Clyne on Dr. E’s case. A September 7, 1999, statement reflected a small photocopy charge and an adjusted balance of $212.91
On or about May 24, 1999, Dr. E forwarded a $1, 000 check payable to Mr. Clyne for an advance fee deposit. Mr. Clyne deposited the check into his personal account. In September 1999, Dr. E requested refund of the $1, 000 from Mr. J, the partner who handles billing inquiries. Mr. J found no record of a deposit and asked Dr. E to forward a copy of the canceled check. On September 23 or 24, 1999. Mr. J told Mr. Clyne about the inquiry and Mr. Clyne made no comment about the check. On September 27, 1999, Mr. Clyne submitted his resignation to GF&J. On or about September 28, 1999, Dr. E faxed Mr. J a copy of the canceled check with a note. Mr. J was on vacation from September 25 through 29 and when he returned, he noted there was no fax from Dr. E as expected. During the week of October 1, 1999, Mr. J asked Mr. Clyne about Dr. E’s inquiry and Mr. Clyne responded that it “had been taken care of”, that Dr. E was mistaken about sending a check and that the trust account records were correct. On October 5, 1999, Mr. Clyne forwarded a check for $1,000 to Dr. E, written on his personal account. On October 6, 1999, Mr. J received a call from Dr. E about his money. Mr. J passed the phone to Mr. Clyne who told Dr. E that it had been “taken care of”. Following the telephone conversation, Mr. Clyne told Mr. J that Dr. E wanted to transfer his remaining firm trust account funds to the departing Mr. Clyne. Dr. E had not indicated such a desire to anyone. The firm transferred the remaining $212.91 to Mr. Clyne, who deposited it into his trust account. In mid-October, Mr. Clyne’s check to Dr. E bounced. On October 16, 1999, not realizing Mr. Clyne had left the firm, Dr. E sent an e-mail about the bounced check to the firm. On October 18, 1999 Mr. J responded to the e-mail by calling Dr. E. Mr. J requested copies of the September 28, 1999 fax and Mr. Clyne’s October 5, 1999 personal check. After reviewing these documents, Mr. J forwarded two checks to Dr. E for the $1,000 deposit and $212.91 balance. On October 23, 1999, Mr. Clyne telephoned Dr. E to discuss representation in the ongoing case. Dr. E told Mr. Clyne that he would continue to be represented by the firm. Dr. E never negotiated the checks from the firm, because Mr. Clyne subsequently reimbursed Dr. E for those amounts.
Mr. Clyne’s conduct violated RPCs 8.4(b), prohibiting lawyers from committing crimes which reflects adversely on the lawyers’ honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer; 8.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and 1.14, requiring a lawyer to deposit all client funds paid to the lawyer in a trust account.
Linda Eide represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Clyne. The hearing officer was George S. Lundin.
|