| Description: |
Robert A. Wright (WSBA No. 19180, admitted 1994), of Tacoma, was disbarred following a hearing, effective march 26, 2003, by order of the Supreme Court. This discipline was based on his conduct from 1998 through 2001, involving false statements to the tribunal, his client and others, dismissing a lawsuit without the clients’ consent and lack of diligence in three client matters.
Matter 1: In 1998, Mr. Wright agreed to represent Mr. and Mrs. C in a lawsuit claiming the seller failed to disclose defects in the home they purchased. The case was scheduled for arbitration in January 2000. All of the parties and opposing counsel appeared for the arbitration, but Mr. Wright did not. He knew about the arbitration, but did not appear because he was intoxicated. Mr. Wright told his client, the arbitrator and his receptionist that he could not attend because his brother, a firefighter, had died in a fire. Mr. Wright had a separate trial set to begin the next day also. He told his receptionist he could not attend the trial either, because he was traveling to be with his sister-in-law due to his brother’s death. Mr. Wright’s law partner appeared in the second trial and obtained a continuance. On January 20, a firm associate learned that Mr. Wright’s statements were not true. Mr. Wright eventually admitted the misrepresentations to his law partner, but stated he would not disclose them to the court until after the cases had settled. In February 2000, Mr. Wright admitted to the court his misrepresentation in the second matter. Mr. Wright agreed to a stipulation dismissing the Cs’ lawsuit, without their authorization.
Matter 2: In September 2000, Mr. Wright decided to stop practicing law as soon as possible. In October 2000, he agreed to represent the parents in a claim in their daughter’s estate. The parents believed they had an ownership claim in a modular home on the daughter’s property. Mr. Wright filed a notice of appearance, but took no other action on the client’s case. Opposing counsel sent Mr. Wright letters about this issue, but he did not respond. In late December, the clients learned that Mr. Wright was leaving the practice of law, asked for their financial records, and learned that they had been lost. The personal representative mailed the rejection of the parents’ claim to Mr. Wright, but he did not forward it to the clients. The firm refunded the clients’ advance fee deposit.
Mr. Wright’s conduct violated RPCs 1.2(a), requiring lawyers to abide by the client’s decisions concerning the objectives of the representation; 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep their client’s reasonably informed of the status of their matters; 3.3, prohibiting lawyers from making false statements of fact to the tribunal; 4.1, prohibiting knowingly making false statements of fact to third parties and 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
Anthony Butler represented the Bar Association. Robert A. Wright represented himself. Steven Hale was the Hearing Officer.
|