| Description: |
Alfredo Lopez (WSBA No. 17502, admitted 1987), of Seattle, was suspended for 60 days, effective February 10, 2005, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. The discipline was based on his conduct between 1997 and 2000 involving repeated failure to file a client’s appellate brief, failure to take steps on termination of the representation to protect the client’s interests, and failure to respond as directed by an order to show cause. For additional information please see In re Discipline of Lopez, 153 Wn.2d 570, 106 P.3d 221 (2005).
Between 1996 and 1997, Mr. Lopez represented a client in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. The client pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 70 months imprisonment, after which the client asked Mr. Lopez to file a notice of appeal.
Mr. Lopez timely filed the notice of appeal, and the 9th Circuit set a July 29, 1997, deadline for the opening brief. Mr. Lopez failed to file the brief. On January 23, 1998, the 9th Circuit entered a notice of default instructing Mr. Lopez to correct the deficiency within 14 days and file a motion for relief from default. Mr. Lopez timely filed a motion for relief from default and an extension of time to file an opening brief until March 20, 1998, attributing his delay to an extremely busy trial schedule. The 9th Circuit granted the motion and extended the deadline to April 20, 1998. The order warned that “[a]ny further requests for extension of time for filing the opening brief are strongly disfavored.”
Mr. Lopez did not file the opening brief by April 20, 1998, and on August 13, 1998, the 9th Circuit entered an order reiterating the instructions and warnings contained in its previous notice of default. Mr. Lopez timely filed a second motion for relief from default and an extension of time requesting until September 8, 1998, to file an opening brief. Mr. Lopez’s accompanying declaration attributed the delay to an extremely busy trial schedule and recent office relocation. The 9th Circuit granted an extension to September 8, 1998. The order noted that Mr. Lopez had missed two previous deadlines and that failure to timely file the opening brief may result in his removal as counsel and may subject him to monetary sanctions. Mr. Lopez did not file the opening brief before September 8, 1998.
In a letter dated September 25, 1998, another lawyer informed Mr. Lopez that he had been hired to represent the client on appeal. He requested the file and enclosed an authorization for release of legal information signed by the client. Mr. Lopez transferred the file to the new lawyer on September 29, 1998, and by letter requested that the new lawyer immediately inform the 9th Circuit of his retention. The new lawyer did not file a notice of appearance or a notice of substitution at that time. Mr. Lopez took no steps to ensure that he was no longer deemed counsel of record in the 9th Circuit or to ensure that the new lawyer had appeared on the client’s behalf.
On March 10, 2000, no opening brief having been filed, the 9th Circuit issued an order to show cause requiring Mr. Lopez, within 10 days, to show cause in writing why he should not be sanctioned in an amount not less than $500 for failing to comply with the court’s rules and orders. Shortly after Mr. Lopez received the order to show cause, his assistant called the 9th Circuit to inform the court that Mr. Lopez was no longer the attorney of record. In May 2000, upon receiving further correspondence from the court referring to him as the client’s “retained counsel,” Mr. Lopez instructed his assistant to draft a letter to the court explaining that he had been discharged and the entire file had been provided to another lawyer.
On May 25, 2000, the client’s subsequent lawyer filed a notice of appearance and a declaration requesting an amended briefing schedule. The 9th Circuit issued an order granting the request for an amended briefing schedule and stated the court’s order to show cause regarding sanctions against Mr. Lopez would be resolved separately.
On June 28, 2000, the 9th Circuit entered an order finding that Mr. Lopez had failed to respond to its March 10, 2000, order to show cause and imposing a $500 sanction. Mr. Lopez timely paid the sanction and filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Ultimately, the 9th Circuit affirmed the client’s sentence.
Mr. Lopez’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client; RPC 1.15(d), requiring that a lawyer take reasonably practicable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interest of the client; and former Rule for Lawyer Discipline 1.1(b), prohibiting a lawyer from willfully disobeying or violating a court order.
Douglas J. Ende represented the Bar Association. Kurt M. Bulmer represented Mr. Lopez. Waldo F. Stone was the hearing officer. |