| Description: |
David M. Lux (WSBA No. 24581, admitted 1995), formerly of Kirkland, was suspended for sixty days, following a stipulation, by order of the Supreme Court, effective December 17, 2002. This discipline was based on his failure to diligently represent three clients, refund unearned fees and dishonest conduct in 2000 and 2001.
Matter 1: In September 2000, Mr. Lux agreed to represent a client in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy matter. On September 18, 2000, the client paid Mr. Lux a non-refundable flat fee. After September 28, 2000, Mr. Lux sent the client bankruptcy forms to complete. The client called for advice on how to fill out the forms, but Mr. Lux did not return his calls. In March 2001, the client retained substitute counsel to complete his bankruptcy. On March 26, 2001, Mr. Lux sent the client a letter informing him that Mr. Lux had transferred the client’s case to another lawyer. The client responded that he had hired a different lawyer and wanted a full refund of his fees. Mr. Lux did not refund the client’s fees. Mr. Lux’s paralegal stated that Mr. Lux told her to make untrue statements to disciplinary counsel during the investigation of this matter.
Matter 2: In October 2000, Mr. Lux agreed to handle a Chapter 7 bankruptcy for a client. The client paid a non-refundable flat fee. Mr. Lux told the client he would contact her creditors and ask them to wait for the bankruptcy. Mr. Lux did not contact the client’s creditors. From October through December 2000, Mr. Lux took no action on the client’s case and failed to answer her phone calls. In January 2001, the client was incarcerated and provided Mr. Lux with a power of attorney, authorizing her mother to work on the bankruptcy matter. Mr. Lux did not file the client’s bankruptcy. On April 25, 2001, the client fired Mr. Lux and demanded a refund. Mr. Lux did not refund the client’s fees.
Matter 3: In January 2001, Mr. Lux agreed to represent the mother in a child residential placement matter. On January 18, 2001, the parties met for a settlement conference. The next day, the client fired Mr. Lux. Mr. Lux did not tell opposing counsel that he no longer represented the father, and she sent him draft final documents. In January 2001, Mr. Lux told opposing counsel that the mother was having second thoughts about the settlement. Opposing counsel set a deposition date for the mother and suggested that the case be set for trial. Mr. Lux took no further action. On September 10, 2001, the court authorized opposing counsel to contact Mr. Lux’s client. The client appeared and the case settled.
Mr. Lux’s conduct violated RPCs 1.3 and 3.2, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients and to expedite litigation; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep their clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters; 1.15, requiring lawyers to withdraw from representation when asked to do so by the client; 1.5(a) and 1.15(d), requiring lawyers to charge reasonable fees and to refund unearned advanced fee deposits upon withdrawal; and 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
Anthony Butler represented the Bar Association. Mr. Lux represented himself.
|