| Description: |
Hari L. Alipuria (WSBA No. 26899, admitted 1997), of Tacoma, was suspended for 90 days, effective September 15, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a stipulation. This discipline was based on his conduct in failing to competently and diligently represent a client and in failing to comply with the terms of a prior disciplinary stipulation.
Matter 1: Mr. Alipuria represented a client who had been charged with first-degree assault of a child for allegedly intentionally burning his infant son. Although the client’s spouse was originally charged with the crime, those charges were dismissed after the client informed the spouse’s lawyer that the client had accidentally burned the child. The defense theory of the case was that the spouse had burned the infant and the client had then fabricated the story of his involvement to protect her.
• Prior to trial, Mr. Alipuria moved to suppress the testimony of the spouse’s lawyer. Although Mr. Alipuria knew that the issue turned on the client’s subjective belief that an attorney-client relationship existed with the other lawyer, Mr. Alipuria failed to call the client to testify at the hearing and failed to offer any other evidence of the client’s subjective belief. The motion was denied.
• Mr. Alipuria listed the client’s seven-year-old child as a trial witness. Mr. Alipuria and the client believed that the child would testify that the spouse burned the infant. Mr. Alipuria did not interview the child prior to trial, nor did he call the child as a witness.
• Knowing that the spouse had taken a polygraph examination, Mr. Alipuria moved prior to trial to exclude any reference to the polygraph examination. Despite having been instructed not to do so, the spouse volunteered during her testimony that she had taken a polygraph examination. Mr. Alipuria did not object, ask for a curative instruction, or move for a mistrial.
• Prior to trial, the client had taken a number of polygraph examinations. He believed that the results were inconclusive. The client requested that Mr. Alipuria not disclose the results of the examinations with the prosecuting attorney. Mr. Alipuria nonetheless volunteered to the prosecuting attorney that the client had failed a polygraph examination.
The jury found the client guilty. On appeal, the conviction was reversed and remanded, in part on grounds that Mr. Alipuria had provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
Matter 2: In 2002, Mr. Alipuria entered into a disciplinary stipulation for violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in two prior matters. The terms of the stipulation imposed a probationary period requiring, inter alia, that Mr. Alipuria (1) propose a practice monitor within two weeks of the commencement of probation; and (2) within 30 days, provide proof of malpractice insurance coverage or of the rejection of his applications for such coverage. Respondent did not propose a practice monitor or apply for malpractice coverage within the time frames required by the stipulation.
Mr. Alipuria’s conduct violated RPCs 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client; 1.3, requiring a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; and 1.6, prohibiting a lawyer from revealing a client’s confidences or secrets unless the client consents after consultation; and former RLDs 1.1(m), subjecting a lawyer to discipline for failure to meet the conditions of probation or a stipulation; and 5.2(b), subjecting a lawyer to discipline for failure to comply with a condition of probation.
Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Leland G. Ripley represented Mr. Alipuria. David B. Condon was the hearing officer. |