| Description: |
Adina A. Atwood (WSBA No. 27787, admitted 1998), of Kent, was disbarred, effective September 15, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on her conduct in 2001 through 2003 involving abandonment of her law practice, multiple acts of misconduct in representing individual clients, and failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation.
In the summer of 2002, Ms. Atwood abandoned her law practice. She removed client files from her law office, but did not return the client files to the clients or to the law office. She did not inform clients that she had abandoned her law practice and had ceased handling their legal matters. She took no action to return remaining client funds in her trust account to the rightful owners.
Matter 1: In 2002, a client paid Ms. Atwood $3,000 to represent her in a dissolution matter. The client directed Ms. Atwood to obtain a temporary restraining order because she feared that her husband would physically harm her. Ms. Atwood obtained an ex parte restraining order that failed to include a provision preventing the husband from entering the family residence. Consequently, Ms. Atwood was obliged to request an amended order that included such a provision. At a hearing on the entry of temporary orders at which the client was not present, Ms. Atwood agreed to a provision allowing the husband to have access to the family home to remove certain property. Ms. Atwood failed to notify the client of this provision. The client did not learn of the provision until the husband appeared at her home with a copy of the order. When the client terminated Ms. Atwood’s services, the client requested an itemized bill and a refund of the remaining balance. Ms. Atwood never responded to these requests, never contacted the client, and did not file a notice of withdrawal. The client obtained a default judgment against Ms. Atwood in small claims court for $3,036.
Matter 2: In 2002, a client paid Ms. Atwood $950 to represent her in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Following commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding, a judgment creditor continued to enforce an order of garnishment against the client. The client paid Ms. Atwood an additional $150 to quash the garnishment. Ms. Atwood failed to file a motion to quash or to do anything else to prevent the judgment creditor from garnishing the client’s wages. Despite the client’s repeated efforts to contact her, Ms. Atwood failed to communicate with the client. Although the client obtained a refund of $300 in garnished wages, she lost $648 as a result of Ms. Atwood’s failure to take action.
Matter 3: In 1998 or 1999, a client with mental-health and substance-abuse problems hired Ms. Atwood to represent her in various matters, including a marital dissolution. Under the terms of a stipulated property distribution, Ms. Atwood, on the client’s behalf, was to receive $18,760 pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Out of that sum Ms. Atwood was to discharge an $8,500 third-party debt and provide the lawyer for the former spouse with proof of payment. Following receipt of the proceeds in January 2001, Ms. Atwood deposited the sum into her trust account. Shortly thereafter, although she had no client authorization to do so, Ms. Atwood disbursed $12,000 to herself. At the time, Ms. Atwood was not owed $12,000 by the client. When the lawyer for the former spouse inquired about discharge of the debt, Ms. Atwood intentionally misrepresented to him that she was waiting for the check to clear. Ms. Atwood disregarded further communications from the lawyer. In April 2002, Ms. Atwood disbursed to herself another $2,000 of the client’s money without the client’s authority, knowledge, or consent. Ms. Atwood took no steps to return the funds remaining in her trust account to the client.
Matter 4: In April 2002, a client paid Ms. Atwood $775 to represent her in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. After filing the bankruptcy, Ms. Atwood failed to inform the client of the date for the meeting of creditors, and did not attend the meeting of creditors. Ms. Atwood never contacted the client again about the bankruptcy, which was dismissed in October 2002 because no one had appeared at the meeting of creditors.
Matter 5: Ms. Atwood did not respond to Bar Association requests for information about and responses to the grievances in matters 1 through 4 above. In April 2003, Ms. Atwood failed to appear for a deposition as required by a subpoena duces tecum. Owing to her failure to cooperate with the Bar Association’s disciplinary investigation, on August 6, 2003, the Supreme Court suspended Ms. Atwood from the practice of law pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings.
Ms. Atwood’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4, requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions; RPC 1.5(a), requiring that a lawyer’s fee be reasonable; RPC 1.14, requiring a lawyer to deposit client funds into a trust account and to pay to the client funds that the client is entitled to receive; RPC 1.15(d), requiring that a lawyer take reasonably practicable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation (including surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned); RPC 4.1(a), prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting commission of a criminal act (namely, theft) that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer from violating a duty imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct.
Jonathan H. Burke represented the Bar Association. Ms. Atwood represented herself. Marc L. Silverman was the hearing officer. |