| Description: |
Oleg Ordinartsev (WSBA No. 27574, admitted 1997), of Bothell, was suspended for two years, effective November 29, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board. This discipline was based on his conduct between 2001 and 2003 involving a number of conflicts of interest, the improper disbursement of client funds, improperly attempting to settle a claim for malpractice liability with an unrepresented client, and the inclusion of a false statement in a promissory note.
Prior to 2001, Mr. Ordinartsev represented Client A in a number of matters. In October 2001, Mr. Ordinartsev began representing Client B in connection with a caviar production and distribution business known as the “caviar project,” which involved several corporate entities. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Ordinartsev stopped taking new clients and commenced work as legal counsel for the caviar project, though he retained some of his existing clients, including Client A.
Meanwhile, Mr. Ordinartsev began to discuss the possibility of Client A investing in the caviar project. Mr. Ordinartsev failed to fully advise Client A of all the conflicts inhering in his advice to invest in the business of another client (including the fact that the business employed Mr. Ordinartsev). Mr. Ordinartsev did not obtain written waivers of the conflict from either client.
In March 2002, Client A gave Mr. Ordinartsev $65,000 to invest in the caviar project, expecting to receive stock in one of the caviar project’s corporations. Mr. Ordinartsev deposited the funds into his trust account. Mr. Ordinartsev subsequently disbursed $20,000 to Client B, $20,000 to himself for legal services related to the caviar project, and $25,000 to one of the project’s corporate entities. At the time, Mr. Ordinartsev knew that this use of the funds was inconsistent with the expectations of Client A. Mr. Ordinartsev failed to provide adequate documentation or obtain any security in connection with his use of the funds.
A number of corporate permutations ensued in connection with the caviar project, during which Mr. Ordinartsev acquired an ownership interest in one of the entities. During this period, Mr. Ordinartsev showcased for Client A the project’s production plant in an attempt to assuage Client A’s concerns about the investment. He also unsuccessfully endeavored to obtain from Client B a corporate resolution from the then operational corporate entity acknowledging that Client A had made a $55,000 capital contribution.
Subsequently, pursuant to Client A’s demand, Mr. Ordinartsev prepared a promissory note for the repayment of the money. In the note, Mr. Ordinartsev also agreed to pursue legal action against Client B to recover the money. The note also falsely stated that Mr. Ordinartsev did not personally benefit from his disbursal of Clients A’s funds.
Client A later rejected Mr. Ordinartsev’s promissory note and instead sought Mr. Ordinartsev’s ownership interest in the caviar project. Mr. Ordinartsev agreed to transfer his interest to Client A, and he drafted a settlement agreement to this effect. The agreement included a provision in which Client A abandoned any and all claims against Mr. Ordinartsev. Mr. Ordinartsev failed to advise Client A to consult with independent counsel about the agreement.
Mr. Ordinartsev’s conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client; RPC 1.2, requiring a lawyer to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objective of representation; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client; RPC 1.7(a) and (b), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, or if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or the lawyer’s own interests, unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents in writing after a full disclosure; RPC 1.8(h), which prohibits a lawyer from settling a claim for malpractice with an unrepresented client without first advising that person in writing that independent representation is appropriate; RPC 8.4(a), prohibiting attempts to violate the RPCs (here, by means of violating RPC 1.9, prohibiting undertaking a representation in conflict with the interests for a former client); and RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Jean K. McElroy represented the Bar Association. Mr. Ordinartsev represented himself. |