| Description: |
Hollis Wayne Duncan (WSBA No. 27937, admitted 1998), of Edmonds, was disbarred effective January 23, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2001, involving willful disobedience of court orders and other acts of misconduct in litigation matters.
Matter 1: Mr. Duncan represented the plaintiff in a King County Superior Court lawsuit. Although Mr. Duncan knew that the case was assigned to Kent, he designated his pleadings as Seattle Assignment Area. The defendant filed a motion to move the case to Kent, and served the motion on Mr. Duncan by certified mail to his rented postal box. In November 2000, the postal-box operator signed the certified-mail receipt for the motion. In December, Mr. Duncan told opposing counsel that he had not received the motion and that he did not accept certified mail. In March 2001, Mr. Duncan told the judge that someone would be available at the post office box facility to accept personally delivered documents; however, he instructed the facility personnel not to accept or sign for any documents. Mr. Duncan sent responsive letters to the assigned judge, but did not file any pleadings. Mr. Duncan also failed to provide signed complete answers to interrogatories, even after a court order. In June 2001, the court awarded sanctions against Mr. Duncan, which he failed to pay.
Matter 2: In June 2001, Mr. Duncan filed a petition for a show cause order in a records disclosure matter. In July 2001, the defendant stated in a declaration that the records did not exist. About a week later, Mr. Duncan filed a second petition for a show cause order requiring disclosure of the same records. Mr. Duncan sent a fax directly to a represented party, knowing that opposing counsel was out of town during this time.
Matter 3: In June 2001, Mr. Duncan filed, but did not serve on opposing counsel, a notice of motion to change the assigned judge in a litigation matter. Mr. Duncan failed to serve four other required documents on opposing counsel. Mr. Duncan presented and obtained an ex parte order changing the assigned judge at a time he knew that opposing counsel was out of town, and failed to serve the order on opposing counsel. After receiving the order changing the assigned judge, Mr. Duncan intentionally presented an ex parte order to a commissioner pro tem. Mr. Duncan also intentionally misstated the date of service in his declaration filed with the court.
Matter 4: On July 24, 2001, Mr. Duncan faxed opposing counsel a notice and motion to extend time. The notice stated that the motion would be heard on July 13, 2001. The motion also stated that a judge other than the judge assigned to the case would hear the matter. Opposing counsel did not respond to the motion, because it was set for a date that had already passed. Mr. Duncan altered his motion, indicating it was to be heard July 26, 2001, and by the judge assigned to the case. He then presented the motion and obtained an order extending time for his response without allowing opposing counsel to respond.
In September 2001, the judge ordered $500 in sanctions against Mr. Duncan. Mr. Duncan willfully failed to pay the sanctions. In March 2002, the judge held Mr. Duncan in contempt of court and ordered that he forfeit $50 per day for each day the sanctions remain unpaid. The court also imposed an additional $500 in attorney's fees.
Mr. Duncan's conduct violated RPCs 3.1, prohibiting lawyers from bringing or defending a proceeding, or asserting or controverting an issue, unless there is a nonfrivolous basis for doing so; 3.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal; 3.4(d), requiring lawyers to make diligent efforts to comply with legally proper discovery requests by an opposing party; 4.2, prohibiting lawyers from communicating about the subject matter of the representation with represented parties without consent of the other lawyer or legal authorization; 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation; 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and 8.4(j), prohibiting willful disobedience or violation of a court order directed to the lawyer.
Randy Beitel represented the Bar Association. Mr. Duncan represented himself. James M. Danielson was the hearing officer.
|