| Description: |
Kelly Seidlitz (WSBA No. 17470, admitted 1987), of Tacoma, has been disbarred by order of the Supreme Court effective June 1, 2000, following a hearing. The discipline is based upon his failure to preserve client funds, committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on his fitness as a lawyer, and failure to diligently represent and communicate with several clients.
Matter 1: Mr. Seidlitz represented a mother and her two minor children regarding injuries from an automobile collision. In June 1994, with the mother’s permission, Mr. Seidlitz settled the children’s claims. Court rules require that minors’ settlement funds are deposited into the court registry, and that a petition be filed for court approval of the settlement. Mr. Seidlitz left the checks in his client file and did not deposit them in the court registry. In November 1994, a doctor who had treated the children learned of the settlement payments and contacted Mr. Seidlitz. The insurance company canceled the first checks and issued new checks that included the doctor as a payee. On January 12, 1995, the doctor endorsed the checks and returned them to Mr. Seidlitz. On January 27, 1995, Mr. Seidlitz filed the required petition asking the court to approve the minors’ settlement. He obtained a final order on March 22, 1995 and disbursed the checks on April 11, 1995. The mother contacted Mr. Seidlitz for information regarding the case from June 1994 through February 1995, but he did not return her calls. In October 1994, the client promptly answered interrogatories and returned them to Mr. Seidlitz. He did not serve them on the insurance company until January 1995.
Matter 2: In February 1995, Mr. Seidlitz agreed to represent the husband in an uncontested dissolution action. He filed the petition for dissolution and the wife accepted service and joined in the petition. The client met Mr. Seidlitz for the first time on July 3, 1995, in court, for the presentation of the final pleadings. The commissioner refused to sign the pleadings because the wife’s signature did not appear on the child support order and worksheet. The commissioner took the required testimonial proof and indicated to Mr. Seidlitz that he would sign the pleadings without further appearance by either party when the wife signed the child support order and worksheet. On July 3, 1995, the client moved out of state, leaving a new address and telephone number with Mr. Seidlitz. The wife signed these pleadings the next week. Mr. Seidlitz did not contact the client after his move. Mr. Seidlitz rescheduled the presentation of final documents for July 31, 1995. The wife appeared in court, but Mr. Seidlitz did not. On December 18, 1995, Mr. Seidlitz’s client drove from Texas to Mr. Seidlitz’s office, which was closed during normal business hours. The client retained new counsel who redrafted the dissolution pleadings and entered them with the court on December 28, 1995.
Matter 3: In August 1994, a daughter met with a Spanish-speaking, nonlawyer legal assistant (assistant) who worked with Mr. Seidlitz. The daughter contacted Mr. Seidlitz’s firm because she was told that the office understood Spanish. The daughter asked that Mr. Seidlitz assist her parents, Mexican citizens, in becoming residents of the United States. The assistant did not tell the parents that the fee was non-refundable. The parents paid Mr. Seidlitz $500 for each parent’s representation. The father did not sign a written fee agreement. Although the mother signed a written fee agreement, it was in English, and she did not read or speak English. Mr. Seidlitz’s office accompanied the father to get two passport photos, but took no other actions on either case. In October 1994, the assistant requested that the parents make an additional payment, which they refused to make until some work was performed. On February 3, 1996, Mr. Seidlitz told the parents that the assistant had been terminated, he could not locate any of their paperwork, and he had no record of any payments. He refused to refund their $1,000 payment. Mr. Seidlitz never located the parents’ original immigration documents.
Matter 4: Mr. Seidlitz represented the wife in a dissolution. The parties settled the case on September 12, 1996, and the court entered the decree that day. The decree provided that the client would receive an annuity payment beginning October 1, 1998. On September 16, 1996, opposing counsel sent Mr. Seidlitz a supplement to the decree to allow the payments to begin. Mr. Seidlitz did not obtain his client’s signature on the pleading. The decree also provided that the husband would deliver the wife’s personal property to his lawyer, and that if the wife had not picked up the property within seven days after notice, she would forfeit the items. Mr. Seidlitz received opposing counsel letter notifying him of the property delivery on September 20, 1996, but Mr. Seidlitz did not notify his client. On October 7, 1996, opposing counsel notified Mr. Seidlitz’s office that the property had been returned to the husband and that it belonged to the husband. About October 12, 1996, Mr. Seidlitz’s office staff told his client that Mr. Seidlitz had been notified about the property but had failed to notify her, and that the property items had been returned to the husband. Mr. Seidlitz did not explain to the client that his failure to protect her property may have created a conflict of interest between the client and himself.
Matter 5: On April 25, 1997, Mr. Seidlitz agreed to represent the husband in a dissolution action. A motion for temporary orders was scheduled for April 28, 1997. Mr. Seidlitz filed a notice of appearance the next day, and opposing counsel agreed to continue the hearing. From April to mid-June, the client called to determine the status of the temporary orders. Opposing counsel rescheduled the hearing for June 2, 1997. Mr. Seidlitz received notice, but did not notify his client, file paperwork or attend the hearing. At the hearing, the court granted the wife temporary primary residential care of their daughter. On June 3, 1997, opposing counsel sent Mr. Seidlitz a copy of the temporary order. Mr. Seidlitz did not send a copy to his client. In mid-June, the client learned of the order from his wife and requested that Mr. Seidlitz withdraw from the case and refund the client’s $1,000 retainer. Mr. Seidlitz did not withdraw from the case or refund the client’s money. Mr. Seidlitz did not communicate with the client after this and took no further action on the case, except to file a response to the petition after receiving a motion for default. The client settled the case on his own in March 1998. The client had to demonstrate that Mr. Seidlitz refused to withdraw from the case before the court would allow the agreed settlement to be entered.
Matter 6: On June 11, 1996, Mr. Seidlitz settled a personal injury case for a client. On June 17, 1996, the insurance company lawyer mailed Mr. Seidlitz three checks or warrants totaling $25,000 and a release. One of the checks was payable to the client, Mr. Seidlitz and a doctor who had treated the client. The doctor’s bill equaled approximately the amount of the check, and he had filed a lien against the settlement. Mr. Seidlitz deposited the check into his bank account without the doctor’s permission or endorsement, and did not pay the doctor’s bill. In late August 1996, the doctor learned of the settlement and hired a lawyer to contact Mr. Seidlitz. On September 4, 1996, Mr. Seidlitz issued a check to the doctor for a portion of the amount of the bill, but did not pay the remaining portion of the bill. On October 16, 1997, the bank paid the doctor the remaining portion of the bill because it accepted the check for deposit without the doctor’s endorsement.
Matter 7: Mr. Seidlitz represented three clients who were injured in an April 1996 automobile accident. In July 1996, Mr. Seidlitz settled the claims. One claim was settled for $7,261, even though the client did not consent to settle for less than $7,500. In late November 1996, Mr. Seidlitz sent the clients their settlement statements, which listed holdbacks for bills that the clients did not owe and that Mr. Seidlitz did not pay. The clients never received the held monies. In December 1996, the clients faxed Mr. Seidlitz a letter detailing mistakes they believed were in the settlement statements and listing the amounts they expected to receive. Mr. Seidlitz did not respond to the letter and paid himself in December 1996. Mr. Seidlitz sent the clients their portions of the settlement in January 1997. The clients again disputed the amounts they received. Mr. Seidlitz did not respond.
Matter 8: Mr. Seidlitz settled a client’s personal injury claim for $11,000. The insurance company issued a check on March 25, 1998 payable jointly to the client, Mr. Seidlitz and a doctor. Mr. Seidlitz deposited the check without the doctor’s endorsement or permission. On April 2, 1998, Mr. Seidlitz had the client sign a handwritten disbursal statement that included a $3,796 holdback for the doctor, which Mr. Seidlitz never paid. The client tried to discuss the bill with Mr. Seidlitz from April 1998 through September 1998, but Mr. Seidlitz did not return the client’s calls.
Matter 9: Mr. Seidlitz settled a client’s personal injury claim for $20,000. The check was made out to the client, Mr. Seidlitz and a doctor. Mr. Seidlitz deposited the check without the doctor’s permission or endorsement. Mr. Seidlitz disbursed some of the money to the client without a settlement statement. Mr. Seidlitz did not pay the $1,200 in medical bills. The client paid the medical bills and then asked that Mr. Seidlitz pay her $1,200 more from the settlement funds. Mr. Seidlitz did not communicate with the client, but sent her $807.50 with no explanation.
Matter 10: On February 25, 1997, Mr. Seidlitz settled a personal injury claim for a father and his minor son. He sent the clients a release and told them that when the insurance company received the signed releases, they would send the settlement checks. The clients signed and returned the releases, but never heard from Mr. Seidlitz. Unbeknownst to the clients, Mr. Seidlitz received the checks. The checks were made out to Mr. Seidlitz and the clients. The checks were deposited into Mr. Seidlitz’s bank account with the clients’ names written on the back. In October 1997, the clients learned from the insurance company that the money had been sent to Mr. Seidlitz. After several phone calls and letters from the clients and the Bar Association, Mr. Seidlitz sent the clients two checks and a settlement statement. The settlement statement indicated a $2,476 holdback for a doctor’s bill. Mr. Seidlitz did not pay the doctor’s bill.
Matter 11: On June 6, 1997, the Supreme Court notified Mr. Seidlitz that his license to practice law was suspended for failure to pay his Bar Association dues. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel also sent Mr. Seidlitz a letter regarding his suspension. Mr. Seidlitz received both notices. Mr. Seidlitz sat as a pro tem Pierce County District Court judge on eight occasions prior to reinstating his license on June 24, 1997. RCW 3.34.060(a) and 3.34.130(1) require that a person must either be elected to serve as a district court judge or be a lawyer admitted to practice in the state of Washington to be eligible to serve as a pro tem judge.
Matter 12: A client not fluent in English retained Mr. Seidlitz to collect a past due $10,000 loan. Mr. Seidlitz agreed to a $1,500 fee to be paid in installments. He wrote three one-page letters in August and October 1994, and did no other work on the client’s case. The client paid Mr. Seidlitz $750. When the client determined that Mr. Seidlitz had only written three letters, he requested a refund, which Mr. Seidlitz did not provide.
Matter 13: Mr. Seidlitz failed to respond to Disciplinary Counsel’s requests to respond to these grievances. Additionally, he failed to appear for a scheduled audit. Mr. Seidlitz also failed to respond to appear for a deposition, after being served with a subpoena.
Mr. Seidlitz’s conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent clients; RPC 1.4(a), requiring lawyers to keep clients informed of the status of their cases and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; RPC 1.14, for failing to properly preserve clients property by depositing client funds into a trust account and keeping records of all transactions; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; RPC 5.3, requiring lawyers to adequately supervise nonlawyer assistants; RPC 1.1, requiring lawyers to provide competent representation; RPC 1.7, prohibiting representing a client if the representation will be materially limited by the lawyer’s own interests; RPC 1.15, requiring lawyers to protect a client’s interests when withdrawing from representation; RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects (theft); RPC 1.2(a), requiring lawyers to abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a case; and RLD 2.8, requiring lawyers to cooperate with Bar Association requests for information regarding grievances or other matters under investigation.
Joy McLean represented the Bar Association. Mr. Seidlitz represented himself. Michael Downes was the hearing officer.
|