| Description: |
Bobby O. Wheeler (WSBA No. 26591, admitted 1996), of Seattle, received a reprimand on September 13, 2002, based on a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board in May 2002. This discipline is based on the filing of an action without basis of law, failure to adequately communicate with a client regarding the action, and failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the client from 1998 to 2001.
In 1998, Mr. K hired Mr. Wheeler to represent him in a proceeding to modify a California divorce and custody decree. Mr. K hired Mr. Wheeler because he is admitted to practice in both Washington, where Mr. K resides, and in California, where Ms. K resides. Mr. K received custody of their teenage daughter, and Ms. K agreed to pay child support and a percentage of unreimbursed medical expenses.
In 1999, Mr. K rehired Mr. Wheeler to enforce the settlement and to seek an increase in child support payments. Mr. K alleged that Ms. K was not paying her share of medical expenses and that a higher child support payment was warranted. Mr. K asked Mr. Wheeler about the possibility of filing for post-majority support for his daughter after she turned eighteen. Mr. Wheeler advised Mr. K that he could seek post-majority support by filing a modification action in Washington. An attorney assisting Mr. Wheeler concluded that California courts had exclusive jurisdiction, but a Washington court could obtain jurisdiction if all parties. However, California does not recognize post-secondary support.
In late 1999, Mr. Wheeler filed motions in Santa Ana County Superior Court and King County Superior Court seeking modification of the California decree. On or about mid-February 2000, Ms. K’s attorney, Mr. E, advised Mr. Wheeler that California had exclusive jurisdiction. The parties agreed to continue the Washington action at a later date. On June 30, 2000, Mr. Wheeler moved to reset the Washington action for trial and to shorten the time for trial. Mr. E again raised objections based on the lack of jurisdiction. On July 19, 2000, Mr. E filed an ex-parte motion in Santa Clara Superior Court to temporarily enjoin the Washington action, and for attorney’s fees and sanctions incurred to defend the action. The court set the motion for September 7, 2000. On July 21, 2000, the King County Superior Court notified the parties that a hearing would be held in the Washington action on September 1, 2000.
On August 2, 2000, the Santa Clara Superior Court held a hearing on the underlying child support issues. The court ordered the parties to provide documentation regarding the disputed medical reimbursements within fifteen days of the hearing. Mr. Wheeler did not file the documentation. During the August 2, 2000 hearing, Mr. E moved to advance the hearing date on his motion to enjoin the Washington action. The court informed Mr. E that he needed to file an ex-parte motion to shorten time, which he did on August 4, 2000. Mr. Wheeler received a copy of the document. Mr. E mailed a package of documents to Mr. Wheeler on August 11, 2000, via U.S. mail that identified the date of the hearing as August 23. Mr. Wheeler asserts he never received the package. Sometime between August 4 and August 17, 2000, Mr. Wheeler received a call from the Santa Clara Superior Court regarding the K. matter. Mr. Wheeler asserts that he tried to call the court back but that he always received a busy signal. On August 17, 2000, Mr. Wheeler sent a letter to Mr. E stating that he would dismiss the Washington action if Mr. E would withdraw the motion for injunctive relief and for sanctions. On the same date, Mr. Wheeler left for California on another matter. On August 18, 2000, Mr. E served Mr. Wheeler at his Seattle office with a letter stating that Mr. Wheeler’s offer had come too late, and with a memorandum in support of his motion to enjoin the Washington action and for attorney’s fees. These documents were received by Mr. Wheeler’s secretary who forwarded a copy to Mr. K. On receipt of the documents, Mr. K spoke to respondent’s secretary asking when the hearing on the motion would be scheduled and whether Mr. Wheeler had made plans to attend. Mr. Wheeler’s secretary promised to relay his questions to Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler did not provide an answer. After leaving for California, Mr. Wheeler made no further inquiries to ascertain if Mr. E’s motion to shorten time had been granted, and if so, when the hearing would occur. On August 23, 2000, the Santa Clara Superior Court held a hearing on Mr. E’s motion. Mr. Wheeler did not appear on Mr. K’s behalf. The court assessed a sanction in the amount of $10,222 against Mr. K, representing the fees and costs expended by Ms. K to defend the Washington action. On August 28, 2000, Mr. Wheeler dismissed the Washington action. On September 11, 2000, Mr. Wheeler recommended filing a motion to set aside the California court’s August 23, 2000 order on Mr. K’s behalf. Mr. Wheeler also told Mr. K that he would order the transcript of the hearing promptly. Mr. Wheeler did not order the transcripts despite repeated reminders from Mr. K. In December 2000, Mr. K ordered the transcripts himself. On February 20, 2001, Mr. Wheeler filed a motion to set aside on behalf of Mr. K. In mid-March 2001, Mr. K decided that he did not want to proceed with the motion to set aside because he was concerned that further sanctions would be assessed against him. The motion was taken off the calendar, but Mr. E had already filed a response. In April 2001, Mr. K expressed his frustrations to Mr. Wheeler about the course of representation and the sanctions that had been assessed against him. By letter of April 16, 2001, Mr. Wheeler agreed to pay Mr. K $7,500 towards the sanctions assessed on August 23, 2000 and to make payment within 14-30 days. He also agreed to incur liability for any attorney’s fees and costs that could arise from the filing of the motion to set aside. Mr. Wheeler did not make the promised payment within 14-30 days. He later paid Mr. K $3,700 towards the sanctions assessed on August 23, 2000. In April 2001, Mr. K hired a new California lawyer who represented him at a hearing on September 19, 2001 in Santa Clara Superior Court to determine whether additional attorney’s fees should be awarded to Ms. K for having to respond to the motion to set aside. At this hearing, the court awarded sanctions against Mr. Wheeler in the amount of $8,061.
Mr. Wheeler’s conduct violated RPC 3.1, stating a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous; RPC 1.4(b), requiring a lawyer to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; and, RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client.
Kevin Bank represented the Bar Association. Patrick Sheldon represented Mr. Wheeler.
|