| Description: |
David S. Teske (WSBA No. 14823, admitted 1984), of Edmonds, was disbarred, effective September 15, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2002 and 2003 involving settling client matters without authority, misrepresentations in legal documents, deceit of a notary public, misappropriation of client funds, and failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation.
Matter 1: In 2002, Mr. Teske agreed to represent two clients in a lawsuit against their former employer. Mr. Teske negotiated a settlement of both claims without adequately consulting with the clients or obtaining authorization to settle for the amounts accepted. Mr. Teske executed settlement documents in which he falsely stated that the documents had been fully reviewed by the clients. Mr. Teske deceitfully persuaded a notary public to notarize signatures purporting to be those of the clients on the settlement documents. Mr. Teske received settlement checks in both matters and deposited them into his firm’s bank account, but he never paid either client any of the settlement proceeds.
Matter 2: In 2003, Mr. Teske failed to provide written responses to two grievances as required by the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct. Mr. Teske subsequently failed to appear as commanded by a subpoena duces tecum issued by disciplinary counsel in connection with the investigation of the grievances.
Ms. Teske’s conduct violated RPCs 1.2(a), requiring a lawyer to abide by a client’s decision regarding a settlement offer; 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; 4.1(a), prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation; 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; 1.14, requiring a lawyer to deposit client funds into a trust account and to pay to the client funds that the client is entitled to receive; and 8.4(b), prohibiting commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; and ELC 5.3(e), requiring a lawyer to promptly respond to any inquiry or discovery request made in connection with a disciplinary investigation.
Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Mr. Teske represented himself. James C. Lawrie was the hearing officer. |