| Description: |
Gregory S. Wilson (WSBA No. 12012, admitted 1981), of Tacoma, resigned in lieu of disbarment, effective October 12, 2004. This resignation was based on his conduct between 2002 and 2004 involving multiple acts of misconduct in immigration matters, failure to comply with duties on suspension, and practicing law while suspended. (Note: Mr. Wilson is to be distinguished from Gregory M. Wilson of Greenacres.)
Matter 1: In February 2002, Mr. Wilson was hired to assist a client in obtaining permanent resident status for the client's family members. Mr. Wilson accepted over $3,000 as an advance cost deposit for the purpose of paying a $1,000-per-person INS penalty, which allows an eligible visa applicant to remain in the United States while a visa application is pending. Mr. Wilson was aware, however, that the family members were ineligible and would not soon become eligible, yet he failed to deposit the sum into a trust account. Mr. Wilson did not respond to repeated client telephone calls, and he failed to take action in the matter until November 2002, at which time he submitted a petition to the INS with an insufficient filing fee, which resulted in the petition being returned. The client requested a refund of the advance cost deposit, but Mr. Wilson failed to do so until a disciplinary investigation was underway.
Matter 2: On March 21, 2003, a client hired Mr. Wilson after meeting with his paralegal and paying $500 for attorney fees. Mr. Wilson did not meet with the client and did not deposit the $500 into a trust account. Although on March 10, 2003, the Supreme Court had issued an order suspending Mr. Wilson from the practice of law for three months commencing April 1, 2003, the client was not informed of Mr. Wilson's imminent suspension, nor was the client informed of the suspension after it began. Mr. Wilson never met with the client, nor did he respond to the client's telephone calls. When the client visited Mr. Wilson's office, office staff advised the client that the matter would be continued and that the client did not need to appear for an April 9, 2003, pretrial hearing. Mr. Wilson did not, however, continue the matter, nor did he appear for the hearing. Owing to the client's failure to appear, a bench warrant was issued for the client's arrest. When the court clerk telephoned Mr. Wilson's office about the situation, a paralegal informed the clerk that another lawyer would be filing a notice of appearance in the matter. The clerk then informed the client that the other lawyer would be appearing for him. The client had never heard of the other lawyer and did not want the other lawyer to represent him. When the client called Mr. Wilson's office, Mr. Wilson did not return his call. The client resolved the case on his own. Despite the client's requests that he return the $500 advance fee deposit, Mr. Wilson did not do so.
Matter 3: Mr. Wilson was hired to represent a Korean national whose passport, containing a student visa, had been stolen. Because the client did not make the necessary arrangements for his replacement passport to contain a visa, he was denied reentry to the United States after traveling to Canada. In June 2002, Mr. Wilson was paid $5,000 to undertake the representation, and he traveled to the U.S.-Canadian border to meet with the client and the border patrol. Thereafter Mr. Wilson asked for and was paid an additional $5,000, which was designated as refundable if Mr. Wilson was not successful in securing the client's re-entry into the United States. Mr. Wilson failed to appear at three scheduled meetings with the client and immigration officials, and he failed to return the client's telephone calls. The client was subsequently required to return to Korea to obtain a new visa. Although Mr. Wilson told the client that he would meet with him during a planned trip to Korea and assist in obtaining a new student visa, Mr. Wilson did not meet with the client during Mr. Wilson's stay in Korea. The client obtained and prepared the necessary documents on his own, eventually obtained a student visa, and returned to the United States. Mr. Wilson refunded $3,000 of the client's money between October 2002 and July 2003, but did not refund the remainder, together with interest, until after the client filed a grievance with the Bar Association.
Matter 4: In 2002, a client hired Mr. Wilson to defend him in a lawsuit. Mr. Wilson and opposing counsel agreed to postpone a pending summary judgment motion until July 10, 2002, to give Mr. Wilson additional time to obtain needed declarations from the client and two witnesses. It was agreed that if the declarations raised sufficient factual issues, the motion would be stricken. At approximately 6:00 p.m. on July 9, 2002, Mr. Wilson's office faxed opposing counsel the client's signed declaration, along with a note indicating that Mr. Wilson would not be present for the motion hearing owing to another court appearance. The declaration was not filed or sent to the court, nor was a continuance sought. Because the declarations of the other witnesses had not been provided, opposing counsel proceeded with the motion. After considering the materials Mr. Wilson had faxed to opposing counsel, which opposing counsel provided to the judge during the hearing, the judge granted the motion and entered judgment against Mr. Wilson's client.
Matter 5: After agreeing to a $50,000 settlement of her son's personal injury claim with an insurance company, a client hired Mr. Wilson to assist in obtaining court approval of the settlement, as required by court rule. In September 2002, Mr. Wilson arranged for the client and her son to meet with another lawyer, whom Mr. Wilson intended to name as the settlement guardian ad litem (GAL). Respondent took no action in the matter between the September 2002 meeting and March 31, 2003. On that date, one day before Mr. Wilson was to be suspended from the practice of law, Mr. Wilson filed an action to have the other lawyer appointed as the settlement GAL and for approval of the settlement. Mr. Wilson remained counsel of record in the matter until February 2004, but he took no further action on the client's behalf.
Matter 6: A Korean citizen hired Mr. Wilson to assist her in completing her pending application for adjustment in status to resident alien. The immigration court had previously ordered the client removed without having issued proper notice. On December 18, 2002, Mr. Wilson filed a motion to reopen the proceedings. On January 3, 2003, the immigration court issued an order noting that Mr. Wilson's motion was not in compliance with immigration court procedures; it ordered Mr. Wilson to file certain forms by April 1, 2003, and set a hearing for July 3, 2003. Mr. Wilson did not notify the client or the immigration court of his imminent suspension from the practice of law, scheduled to commence on April 1, 2003. On the date his suspension took effect, Mr. Wilson filed additional noncompliant papers with the court. On April 8, 2003, the immigration court issued an order extending the deadline for 10 days; the order warned that failure to file the necessary papers would lead to entry of an order of abandonment and voluntary departure without further warning. Mr. Wilson did not respond to the order. On April 28, 2003, the immigration court granted voluntary departure until June 20, 2003, with an alternative order of removal. Mr. Wilson did not forward the order to the client. The client unsuccessfully attempted to contact Mr. Wilson about the July hearing; the client only learned of Mr. Wilson's suspension when a relative contacted the Bar Association for assistance in communicating with Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson subsequently filed an untimely appeal of the order, which was dismissed. He also filed an untimely motion for reconsideration, which was dismissed. The client was detained by immigration authorities in January 2004, but was released on humanitarian grounds to allow her to care for her ailing veteran husband after a congressman intervened on her behalf. The client subsequently hired new counsel, who successfully moved to reopen the proceeding based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
Matter 7: During the period of his three-month suspension, in three matters Mr. Wilson failed to notify clients of his suspension and he practiced law while suspended and/or allowed his legal assistants to take action on the client's behalf. In 19 cases in which Mr. Wilson was counsel of record, although no other lawyer substituted for his clients, Mr. Wilson failed to notify the court of his inability to act as required by the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct. In at least four matters in addition to Matter 2 (above), Mr. Wilson arranged for another lawyer to substitute for him during the period of his suspension without obtaining his client's consent.
Mr. Wilson's conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4(a), requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; RPC 1.4(b), requiring a lawyer to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions concerning the representation; RPC 1.5(a), requiring that a lawyer's fee be reasonable; RPC 1.7(b), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a third person, or the lawyer's own interests; RPC 1.14(a), requiring a lawyer to deposit all funds of a client into an interest-bearing trust account; RPC 1.14(b)(4), requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or deliver as requested by the client any funds or properties in the possession of the lawyer that the client is entitled to receive; RPC 1.15(a)(1), requiring a lawyer to terminate a representation if the representation will result in violation of the Rules for Professional Conduct or other law; RPC 5.3, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the conduct of nonlawyer assistants is compatible with the lawyer's ethical obligations; RPC 5.5(a), prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law; RPC 5.5(e), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in the practice of law while on inactive status or while suspended; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; RPC 8.4(j), prohibiting willful disobedience or violation of a court order; ELC 14.1(c), requiring a suspended lawyer to notify clients, tribunals, and adverse counsel of the lawyer's inability to act; and ELC 14.2, requiring a disbarred or suspended lawyer to discontinue the practice of law.
Anne I. Seidel represented the Bar Association. Brett A. Purtzer represented Mr. Wilson. |