| Description: |
Grosvenor Anschell (WSBA No. 9756, admitted 1954), of Bellevue, was disbarred effective May 29, 2003, by order of the Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 1993 through 1997 involving immigration and escrow matters. For additional information, please see In re Anschell, 149 Wn.2d 484, 69 P.3d 844 (2003).
Matter 1: In 1993, Mr. Anschell agreed to represent Mr. D in his request for a grant of immunity from the I.N.S. Mr. D had married and then divorced, but continued to live with Ms. B, a citizen of the Philippines. Mr. D then obtained an alien fiancée visa for Ms. B's niece, and they were subsequently married. Mr. D then divorced the niece and wanted a grant of immunity to report the niece to the I.N.S. Mr. Anschell wrote a letter to the I.N.S. requesting the grant of immunity.
In 1995, the I.N.S. issued notice of intent to rescind the niece's permanent-residence status based on a fraudulent marriage. The niece then retained Mr. Anschell to represent her in the rescission case. Mr. Anschell did not discuss this conflict of interest with either of his clients. Mr. Anschell did not respond to the I.N.S. rescission notice, and the I.N.S. rescinded the niece's status and terminated her right to be employed in the U.S. A year after the decision, Mr. Anschell prepared documents to adjust the niece's status. In these documents, Mr. Anschell answered no to questions asking whether the niece had ever procured a visa by fraud or had ever been the subject of immigration proceedings. When Mr. D learned that Mr. Anschell represented the niece, he filed a grievance with the WSBA. Mr. Anschell told the WSBA he would withdraw, but did not do so. Mr. Anschell requested, and the court ordered, that the niece be voluntarily deported. He then waived the niece's right to appeal.
Matter 2: In 1996, Mr. Anschell agreed to act as the closing escrow agent for two residential property transactions. The first sale closed in February 1996, but the second was delayed when the seller died. In June 1996, the parties signed the documents for the second sale and Mr. Anschell completed the HUD-1 Settlement Statement (statement). The statement did not include a $20 disbursement Mr. Anschell had made the day prior to sending the statement to the lender. On June 20, 1996, Mr. Anschell received the loan proceeds and a check from the purchasers. Mr. Anschell did not deposit the purchasers' check into his trust account until July 3, 1996. Although Mr. Anschell was aware of the disbursement amounts by June 20, he made the payments between June 20 and August 19. He paid off the first mortgage on July 29, increasing the pay-off amount. Mr. Anschell prepared the final HUD-1 form more than a year after the sale closed, and the form was not accurate. As of August 1996, Mr. Anschell had not paid the title and mortgage-insurance premiums. In December 1997, Mr. Anschell deposited $300 of his own funds into the trust account to make the premium payments.
Matter 3: On March 24, 1997, while in court for another matter, Mr. B asked Mr. Anschell to represent him. Mr. Anschell agreed, filed a notice of appearance, and obtained an order allowing a brief to be filed on April 28. The forms Mr. Anschell filed contained the client's address. Mr. Anschell did not contact his client or file the brief. In June 1997, the court ordered the client deported. Mr. Anschell received a copy of this decision, but did not send it to his client. The I.N.S. went to the address on the forms and took the client into custody. The client retained new counsel and unsuccessfully attempted to re-open the deportation proceedings. Mr. Anschell did not promptly or fully cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel's investigation.
Mr. Anschell's conduct violated RPCs 1.9, prohibiting lawyers from representing a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the lawyer's former client; 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent clients; 4.1(a), prohibiting lawyers from making false statements of fact or law to third parties; 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep their clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters; and 1.14, requiring lawyers to protect client funds; and RLD 2.8(a), requiring lawyers to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
Fred Tausend, Jason Holtman, and Jean McElroy represented the Bar Association. Mr. Anschell represented himself. Thomas J. Greenan was the hearing officer.
|