| Description: |
William R. Brendgard (WSBA No. 21254, admitted 1991), of Everett, was ordered to receive a reprimand, effective November 19, 2004, following a stipulation approved by the hearing officer. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2002 and 2003 in failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, failing to communicate with the client, failing to pursue the client’s objectives, and failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation.
In June 2002, Mr. Brendgard was hired to obtain post-dissolution financial relief against a client’s former spouse. In August 2002, when the client contacted Mr. Brendgard to inquire about progress on the matter, Mr. Brendgard assured her that he would present her claims and provide her with copies of the papers, but he failed to do so. In late August 2002, the client’s former spouse filed a motion for contempt, alleging that the client had failed to comply with a parenting plan. Mr. Brendgard represented the client at a hearing on the motion in September 2002, after which the court found the client in contempt and assessed $500 in attorney fees against her. Although Mr. Brendgard telephoned the client shortly thereafter, he failed to inform her that she had been found in contempt or that costs had been assessed against her.
In January 2003, the client’s former spouse filed a second motion for contempt, and the matter was scheduled for hearing on January 27. Although the client attempted to communicate with Mr. Brendgard before the hearing, he did not respond to her inquiries until January 31. Meanwhile, Mr. Brendgard obtained a continuance to acquire information from the client. At a hearing on February 6, the court again found the client in contempt and assessed $1,000 in attorney fees against her. Mr. Brendgard failed to inform the client of the outcome. For several months following the hearing, the client attempted to contact Mr. Brendgard, to no avail.
In April 2003, the client reached Mr. Brendgard by telephone. He informed her that he had moved and that her documents and information must have become lost. He assured her that he would contact her the next day about them. After that conversation, Mr. Brendgard had no further communication with the client. He did not send her any information or inform her of the result of the February 6 hearing. He did not commence action on the client’s post-dissolution claims, nor did he refund the fee the client had paid. He filed a notice of intent to withdraw from the case in November 2003.
Mr. Brendgard’s conduct violated RPC 1.2, requiring a lawyer to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation; 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 promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.
Natalea Skvir represented the Bar Association. Mr. Brendgard represented himself. Carolyn A. Lake was the hearing officer. |