| Description: |
Antony P. Deruiz (WSBA No. 24641, admitted 1995), of Edmonds, was ordered to serve two consecutive six-month suspensions, effective October 21, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following hearings in two matters. The matters were consolidated on appeal. This discipline was based on his conduct between 2000 and 2002 involving neglect of client cases, failure to communicate with clients, failure to refund unreasonable and unearned fees, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations. For additional information please see In re Discipline of Deruiz, 152 Wn.2d 558, 99 P.3d 881 (2004).
Matter 1: This matter comprises misconduct in two client matters, together with failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigations of both matters.
• In June 2001, Client A's mother paid Mr. Deruiz $1,500 to represent the client at a probation review hearing. After advising the client that a hearing date would be set soon, Mr. Deruiz did not further write or speak to the client, despite the client's efforts to contact him. The client telephoned the court and learned that a hearing date had not been set. Mr. Deruiz scheduled the hearing shortly thereafter. When the client's mother telephoned Mr. Deruiz to inquire about the hearing date, Mr. Deruiz was upset and threatened to terminate the representation because the client had contacted the court. After indicating the hearing was scheduled for July 9, Mr. Deruiz ended the call. He had no further contact with the client or the client's mother. On July 9, the court canceled the hearing because Mr. Deruiz had not appeared and had not arranged for the client to be transported from the correctional facility. Mr. Deruiz did not respond to the client's mother's inquiries about why he had failed to appear nor to her requests that he refund the $1,500. Mr. Deruiz did not withdraw as counsel of record. The client's mother eventually obtained a civil default judgment against Mr. Deruiz in the amount of $1,590.
• During the course of the WSBA disciplinary investigation of the Client A matter, Mr. Deruiz failed to submit a timely response to a request for a response, failed to appear for a deposition as required by subpoena, terminated a deposition in order to consult with counsel, and failed to appear for the rescheduled deposition.
• In November 2000, Client B hired Mr. Deruiz to appeal the Department of Licensing's revocation of his driver's license. Client B paid Mr. Deruiz $1,000 of the agreed $2,000 fee. Months passed without Mr. Deruiz providing the client with any information on the status of the case. During this period, the client's employment as a commercial truck driver was terminated because the client lacked information on the status of his license. The client repeatedly attempted to contact Mr. Deruiz, without success. Mr. Deruiz did not respond to the client's requests for information about the status of the appeal, for an accounting, and for a return of unearned fees.
• During the course of the disciplinary investigation of the Client B matter, Mr. Deruiz failed to respond to a request for information and declined to appear at a deposition as required by subpoena. The WSBA served him with a petition for interim suspension for failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation, together with an order to show cause, to which he did not respond. The Supreme Court granted the petition for an interim suspension, which remained in effect until Mr. Deruiz attended a deposition and provided the WSBA with the requested materials.
Matter 2: Client C hired Mr. Deruiz to represent him on a charge of driving under the influence in Grant County and another driving-under-the-influence case in Kittitas County. The client paid both fees in part, and it was agreed that the remainder of the two fee arrangements could be paid in installments of $100 per month. Mr. Deruiz failed to attend a January 22 hearing in Grant County, claiming he was unable to successfully travel over Snoqualmie Pass, although the client and the judge had both successfully navigated the pass to attend the hearing. The court continued the hearing to February 19. On February 16, Mr. Deruiz appeared in court with the client in Kittitas County. Because the client was behind on his February payment, Mr. Deruiz warned him that a failure to pay would result in Mr. Deruiz's withdrawal. The client assured him that a check was in the mail.
On February 19, Mr. Deruiz failed to appear for the Grant County hearing; he did not contact the court, the prosecutor, or the client regarding his failure to appear. Subsequently, he received notice from the prosecuting attorney and the court that the hearing was rescheduled to February 25, but Mr. Deruiz failed to appear on that date or to contact the parties or the court. The court again rescheduled the hearing for March 12 and notified Mr. Deruiz of its understanding that he was counsel in the matter. Mr. Deruiz again failed to appear. Although Mr. Deruiz had not formally withdrawn from the matter, the court assigned Client C a public defender. Despite numerous attempts, the client was unable to contact Mr. Deruiz about the situation.
During the disciplinary investigation of the Client C matter, Mr. Deruiz proffered a number of reasons for his failures to appear, which explanations were inconsistent with his later testimony at the disciplinary hearing. Mr. Deruiz's explanations for his failures to appear were found to be not credible.
Mr. Deruiz's conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; 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 1.5(b), requiring that upon client request a lawyer shall communicate in writing the basis or rate of a fee; RPC 1.15(d), requiring that a lawyer take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests upon termination of representation, including refunding any advance fee payment that has not been earned; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and former RLD 2.8(a), requiring a lawyer to promptly furnish a full and complete response to any inquiry or request made in connection with a grievance or disciplinary investigation.
Kevin M. Bank, Tracy B. Calabrese, Marsha A. Matsumoto, and Rebecca A. Neal represented the Bar Association. Mr. Deruiz represented himself. Robert C. Bibb and Moses F. Garcia were the hearing officers. |