| Description: |
Alan F. Hall (WSBA No. 1505, admitted 1974), of Edmonds, was ordered to receive a reprimand on January 27, 2005, following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct between 1998 and 2001 involving failure to communicate with a client, failure to provide competent representation, failure to act with diligence, asserting a claim for fees to the court without a basis for doing so that was not frivolous, failure to adequately supervise the work of an APR 9 legal intern, and charging unreasonable fees.
Mr. Hall was retained by a client to recover unpaid pension benefits and to enforce the ex-husband’s continuing financial obligation to his client under a Snohomish County divorce decree. In January 1998, Mr. Hall entered into a written fee agreement with the client, capping legal fees at $500, and requiring monthly bills to the client. In January 1998, Mr. Hall wrote to the client’s ex-husband regarding payments, but took no further action until March 2000. During this time, Mr. Hall did not communicate with his client to keep her informed about the case. Mr. Hall sent the client’s first monthly invoice in June of 2000, following a request from the client. The $2,467.97 invoice greatly exceeded the $500 cap without any prior notice to the client.
In March 2000, Mr. Hall filed a motion seeking to hold his client’s ex-husband in contempt for nonpayment. The motion was prepared and sent out for filing by a legal intern working under Mr. Hall’s instructions. On May 15, 2000, Mr. Hall and his legal intern appeared before a pro tem court commissioner, who signed an order of contempt and a $6,400 judgment. In the proposed order, Mr. Hall had requested attorney’s fees of $3,000 and costs of $1,500, which he indicated to the commissioner based on fees and costs actually incurred. Actual combined fees and costs did not exceed $2,500. The commissioner reduced Mr. Hall’s fee award because it included undocumented estimates of prospective costs and fees for which he could not verify at that juncture.
Following the hearing, Mr. Hall directed the legal intern to prepare paperwork for the enforcement of the judgment, including a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Mr. Hall’s legal intern had limited experience in domestic-relations law and judgment collections. In June 2000, Mr. Hall asked the commissioner to sign an ex-parte order approving the QDRO prepared by his intern. After the order was signed and entered by the court, Mr. Hall directed his intern to collect upon the QDRO and forward the order to the retirement office of the client’s ex-husband’s company for disposition. The QDRO was rejected by the company’s retirement office as failing to comply with the company retirement plan. In June 2001, Mr. Hall and his legal intern prepared an amended QDRO using the guidelines sent by the retirement office, which was qualified by the retirement plan’s administrator and resulted in monthly payments remitted to Mr. Hall’s client.
Mr. Hall’s conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client; 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 to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; RPC 1.4(b), requiring a lawyer to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; RPC 1.5(a); requiring a lawyer’s fee to be reasonable; RPC 3.1, prohibiting a lawyer from bringing or defending a proceeding, or asserting or controverting an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; APR 9(d)(1), requiring the supervising lawyer or another lawyer from the same office to direct, supervise, and review all of the work of the legal intern and to assume personal professional responsibility for any work undertaken by the legal intern while under the lawyers’ supervision, and APR 9(d)(5), in which a supervising lawyer’s failure to provide adequate supervision or to comply with the duties set forth in APR 9(d) are grounds for disciplinary action.
Raymond S. Weber represented the Bar Association. Joseph J. Ganz represented Mr. Hall. David W. Wiley was the hearing officer. |