| Description: |
William Beresford (WSBA No. 388, admitted 1968), of Edmonds, resigned in lieu of disbarment, effective November 9, 2004. This resignation was based on his conduct in failing to keep a client adequately informed about the status of a matter, failing to comply with trust-accounting rules, intentionally misappropriating client funds, making false and misleading statements in connection with a disciplinary investigation, and testifying falsely in a disciplinary deposition. (Note: Mr. Beresford is to be distinguished from Robert O. Beresford, deceased, and Richard R. Beresford, of Edmonds.)
In 1995, Mr. Beresford represented a client seeking to obtain payment for work performed as a subcontractor. In 1996 Mr. Beresford obtained a stipulated judgment in the client's favor for $10,000 plus interest. The defendant did not pay the judgment in a timely fashion, and Mr. Beresford assisted the client in attempting to collect the judgment. Between 1996 and October 1999, the defendant made a number of payments on the judgment, which Mr. Beresford and/or his firm properly paid to the client.
In October 1999, the defendant gave Mr. Beresford two $5,000 checks made payable to Mr. Beresford. Mr. Beresford did not notify the client of the receipt of the funds. Mr. Beresford endorsed both checks, depositing some of the proceeds into his own personal bank account and taking the remainder in cash. Without the client's knowledge or authorization, Mr. Beresford intentionally misappropriated all the money for his own purposes. In December 2000, Mr. Beresford purchased and delivered to the client a $2,500 cashier's check payable to the client.
The client subsequently asked Mr. Beresford to represent him in collecting payment on another matter. The client came to believe that Mr. Beresford was not handling the matter diligently, and requested information about the case. Mr. Beresford did not respond to the requests. In 2002, the client repeatedly wrote to Mr. Beresford, stating that he had hired another lawyer in both matters and asking Mr. Beresford to provide him with both files and an accounting in the first matter. Mr. Beresford did not respond to these requests until he was contacted by the WSBA, at which time he turned over the files to the client. He did not, however, provide the client with an accounting.
In February 2003, the lawyer for the defendant in the first matter requested that Mr. Beresford provide a satisfaction of judgment for the defendant's payment of the judgment amount. Mr. Beresford responded that he no longer represented the client and that the defendant knew the judgment had not been fully paid. He later indicated that he did not want to take the time to do all the arithmetic to determine whether the judgment had been paid off.
In March 2003 and again in May 2003, the client requested an accounting. Mr. Beresford did not provide the requested accounting.
The client filed a grievance with the WSBA in August 2003. In his written responses to the grievance and to requests for information in connection with the investigation, as well as during an investigatory deposition, Mr. Beresford, in an effort to prevent discovery of his misappropriations, intentionally made false and/or misleading statements regarding his handling of the funds and the payment of funds to the client.
In connection with his resignation in lieu of disbarment, Mr. Beresford paid restitution to the former client.
Mr. Beresford's conduct violated RPC 1.4, requiring a lawyer to keep a 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 1.14(a), requiring a lawyer to deposit funds belonging to a client into an identifiable interest-bearing trust account; RPC 1.14(b)(1), requiring a lawyer to promptly notify a client of the receipt of client funds; RPC 1.14(b)(4), requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by the client funds in the lawyer's possession that the client is entitled to receive; RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and ELC 5.3(e)(1), requiring a lawyer to promptly respond to any inquiry or request made under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct and to provide a full and complete response to inquiries and questions.
Jean K. McElroy represented the Bar Association. Leland G. Ripley represented Mr. Beresford. |