| Description: |
Kenneth R. Mitchell (WSBA No. 17401, admitted 1987), of Tacoma, was suspended for two years, effective May 31, 2001, by order of the Supreme Court approving a stipulation. This discipline is based on his conduct during 1998 through 2000, involving lack of diligence, misrepresentation, failure to protect client funds and failure to cooperate with the discipline process.
Matter 1: In August 1998, Ms. F retained Mr. Mitchell to represent her in a marriage dissolution action. Approximately one week later, Mr. Mitchell informed Ms. F that her husband had been served with the pleadings and that he had issued subpoenas for financial information. In March 1999, Mr. Mitchell told the client he was waiting for a trial date and that the matter would be finalized soon. On May 13, 1999, Ms. F learned that the dissolution had never been filed. Mr. Mitchell never filed the dissolution with the court, nor served the client’s husband. He also failed to respond to the client’s request that he refund her attorney’s fees. Mr. Mitchell failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation of this matter.
Matter 2: Mr. and Ms. M retained Mr. Mitchell to defend them in a lawsuit. After the arbitration, the M’s told Mr. Mitchell they wanted to appeal the decision, if it was not favorable. Mr. Mitchell did not inform the clients when the arbitrator issued his decision. In November 1998, the plaintiff’s attorney requested that the arbitrator increase the attorney’s fees and costs award. Mr. Mitchell did not submit a response to this request and on December 23, 1998, the arbitrator increased the amount of attorney fees. Mr. Mitchell did not inform the M’s of the arbitrator’s award. On January 13, 1999, the plaintiff’s attorney filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment. Mr. Mitchell did not inform the M’s of the motion, and on January 22, 1999, the court entered the judgment against them. On April 16, 1999, the M’s consulted with another attorney, who negotiated a settlement with the plaintiff’s lawyer. Mr. Mitchell failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation into this matter.
Matter 3: On April 6, 2000, Mr. D retained Mr. Mitchell to obtain an emergency restraining order. Between April 10 and April 13, 2000, Mr. D and/or his wife, left several messages at Mr. Mitchell’s office, and Mr. Mitchell assured them he would obtain the restraining order by April 14. Mr. Mitchell did not obtain the restraining order or file any papers with the court requesting the order. On April 14, 2000, Mr. Mitchell received an order from the Supreme Court suspending him for sixty days effective April 19, 2000. He immediately stopped work on Mr. D’s case, but did not inform Mr. D. The D’s continued to leave messages for Mr. Mitchell, but received no response. On April 27, 2000, Ms. D received a call from another attorney informing her that Mr. Mitchell had been suspended. Ms. D contacted the court and learned that he had never filed the papers seeking the restraining order. On May 2, 2000, Mr. Mitchell sent the D’s a letter notifying them of his suspension. On May 4, 2000, Mr. D wrote to Mr. Mitchell and requested a refund of his $750, but Mr. Mitchell did not respond. Mr. Mitchell did not cooperate with the disciplinary investigation of this matter.
Matter 4: In August 1997, Mr. R retained Mr. Mitchell to represent him in a temporary parenting plan modification. Mr. Mitchell asked the client to pay $130 for medical records, but never requested those medical records. Mr. Mitchell prepared the parenting plan and obtained the parties’ signatures on September 26, 1997, but never filed the temporary plan with the court. In February 2000, Mr. R asked Mr. Mitchell to make the parenting plan modifications permanent. Mr. Mitchell prepared a Petition for Modification and obtained the parties’ signatures on March 3, 2000, but never filed it with the court. On April 19, 2000, Mr. Mitchell’s license to practice law was suspended. Mr. Mitchell did not notify his client of his suspension. Mr. R contacted the court and learned that Mr. Mitchell had not filed either the 1997, or 2000 modification papers. When the client called Mr. Mitchell’s office, he learned of his suspension. Mr. Mitchell assured Mr. R that he had filed the modification papers. Mr. Mitchell did not refund Mr. R’s attorney’s fees or costs from the 1997 representation, or provide him with an accounting. Mr. Mitchell failed to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation into this matter.
Mr. Mitchell’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; RPC 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters; RPC 1.5, requiring a lawyer’s fees to be reasonable; RPC 1.14(b)(2) and (3), requiring lawyers to protect client property and maintain records of client funds; RPC 1.14(b)(4), requiring lawyers to promptly deliver funds to the client if requested; RPC 1.15(d), requiring lawyers to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests upon withdrawal; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation: RLD 2.8, requiring lawyers to cooperate with the disciplinary process; and RLD 8.1, requiring suspended lawyers to notify clients.
Marsha Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. Mr. Mitchell represented himself.
|