| Description: |
George P. Trejo Jr. (WSBA No. 19758, admitted 1990), of Yakima, received a reprimand, and was ordered to pay approximately $6,500 restitution, on June 6, 2003, following a hearing. This discipline is based on his failing to diligently represent four clients, and charging excessive fees in 1997 and 1998.
Matter 1: In 1997, Mr. Trejo agreed to represent a client serving jail time to satisfy a fine imposed for committing two misdemeanors. The family paid Mr. Trejo $2,000 to begin the representation. Mr. Trejo instructed his staff to contact the municipal court for the cost of the record and met with the family to request additional fees. He took little or no other action on the case. He did not file a notice of appearance or a notice of appeal. Mr. Trejo refused the family's request to refund the fees paid. Mr. Trejo's conduct in this matter violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; and 1.5(a), requiring lawyers to charge reasonable fees.
Matter 2: In 1997, Mr. Trejo agreed to represent a client in a sentencing hearing and an appeal of the client's felony convictions in Oregon. Mr. Trejo was not admitted to practice law in Oregon. The family paid Mr. Trejo $6,000. Mr. Trejo reviewed one of two sets of indictments, judgments, and sentencing orders, and did not contact trial counsel or review the transcript. Mr. Trejo determined an issue on appeal may exist and asked for additional funds to attend the sentencing or begin an appeal. Other counsel represented the client at the sentencing and on appeal. The family requested a refund of the fees they had paid. Mr. Trejo initially refused, claiming that he had been paid only $3,000. Mr. Trejo refunded $3,000 after acknowledging in a disciplinary deposition that he had been paid $6,000. Mr. Trejo's conduct in this matter violated RPCs 1.5(a) and (b), requiring lawyers to charge reasonable fees and to explain the basis for the fees; 1.1 and 1.3, requiring lawyers to competently represent their clients; 1.14(a) and (b), requiring lawyers to deposit client funds into an IOLTA trust account and deliver client funds promptly when requested; and 1.15(d), requiring lawyers to take reasonable steps to protect a client's interests upon withdrawal.
Matter 3: In 1998, Mr. Trejo agreed to represent a client in a criminal appeal in Oregon. Mr. Trejo was not admitted to practice law in Oregon. The client's mother paid Mr. Trejo $4,000. Mr. Trejo performed a limited review of the case, prepared one short memo, and asked for an additional $6,000 to begin the appeal. Mr. Trejo refused to refund the fee, claiming it was non-refundable. Mr. Trejo's conduct in this matter violated RPCs 1.1, 1.3, and 1.5(a) and (b).
Matter 4: In 1998, Mr. Trejo agreed to represent a client charged with a felony in Texas. Mr. Trejo was not admitted to practice law in Texas. Mr. Trejo retained local Texas counsel, but asked that he sponsor Mr. Trejo only when Mr. Trejo appeared in court. Mr. Trejo filed a notice of appearance, but took no further action until April 1999. By that time, the court had issued a warrant for the client's arrest and ordered his bond forfeited. The family asked for a refund of the $4,000 they had paid. Mr. Trejo refused, claiming the fees were nonrefundable. Mr. Trejo's conduct in this matter violated RPCs 1.1, 1.3, and 1.5(a) and (b).
Matter 5: Mr. Trejo failed to timely cooperate with the Bar Association investigation of three of these matters. Mr. Trejo's conduct in this matter violated RLD 2.8 (now ELC 5.3(e)).
Gregory F. Wesner and Claire Foley represented the Bar Association at hearing, and Douglas Ende represented the Bar Association on appeal. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Trejo at hearing, and Mr. Trejo represented himself on appeal. Ronald A. Roberts was the hearing officer. |