| Description: |
Ronald F. Chin (WSBA No. 8869, admitted 1979), of Lynnwood, was suspended for two years, effective March 23, 2005, 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 2004 involving failure to deposit client funds into a trust account, failure to maintain complete records of client funds coming into his possession and to render appropriate accounts, failure to adequately supervise a nonlawyer assistant, and failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation.
Matter 1: Between August 1994 and June 2002, Mr. Chin delegated responsibility for handling his trust account to his nonlawyer spouse. During this period, the following conduct occurred and established grounds for discipline:
• Mr. Chin failed to adequately discuss trust account recordkeeping with his spouse, supervise her recordkeeping, adequately discuss with her the requirements for handling trust funds or complying with RPC 1.14, or supervise her handling of client funds.
• Mr. Chin received notice of trust account overdrafts in 1998 and 1999, but failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with RPC 1.14 and continued to delegate responsibility for handling the trust account to his spouse.
• Mr. Chin failed to maintain complete records of client funds coming into his possession (and had no reason to believe that such records were being maintained), failed to maintain a checkbook register for his trust account, failed to maintain individual client ledgers for clients who had funds in his trust account, and failed to maintain a record of trust account activity.
• Between January 2000 and July 2002, funds belonging to Mr. Chin were commingled with client funds held in his trust account, and Mr. Chin's spouse was improperly using and disbursing client funds in Mr. Chin's trust account without the clients' consent, knowledge, or authorization.
Matter 2: In October 1997, Client A hired Mr. Chin to represent him in seeking recovery on a personal-injury claim arising out of an automobile accident. In March 2001, the matter settled for $40,000. Client A's insurance carrier agreed to accept $4,941 as full settlement of its PIP lien. In a closing statement signed by the client, Mr. Chin indicated that $4,941 of the settlement proceeds would be withheld and used to pay the insurance carrier and that Mr. Chin would receive $3,089.50 in attorney fees. The $40,000 settlement check was deposited into Mr. Chin's trust account, but the settlement proceeds were not used to pay the insurance carrier or held in the trust account. In March 2001, Mr. Chin's spouse disbursed $7,000 of the settlement proceeds for purposes unrelated to the client's claim and without the client's knowledge, consent, or authorization. In April 2001, Mr. Chin's spouse withdrew $3,500 from the settlement proceeds to pay Mr. Chin's fees, which represented more fees than Mr. Chin was entitled to receive. During this period, Mr. Chin's trust account was overdrawn by $1,589, which was subsequently remedied when $1,600 of unidentified funds were deposited into the account. After the Bar Association had commenced a disciplinary investigation of the matter, Mr. Chin paid the insurance carrier's claim out of funds other than the settlement funds.
Matter 3: In November 2000, Client B hired Mr. Chin to represent him in various family law matters. Client B issued a $10,000 check, which was deposited into Mr. Chin's trust account; $2,000 was subsequently withdrawn as payment of Mr. Chin's attorney fees. In January 2001, Mr. Chin's spouse transferred $8,000 of Client B's funds from Mr. Chin's trust account into Mr. Chin's general account and used the funds for purposes unrelated to Client B's case without Client B's knowledge, consent, or authorization. Shortly thereafter, the court entered an order requiring Client B to pay $10,000 to his domestic partner within 10 days. Client B directed Mr. Chin to use the $8,000 that was thought to be in Mr. Chin's trust account to pay a portion of the $10,000 obligation. In late January and early February, Mr. Chin's spouse deposited $7,962.08 in unidentified funds into Mr. Chin's trust account to be used to make this payment.
Matter 4: In 1999, Client C hired Mr. Chin to collect a debt. The fee agreement provided that Mr. Chin was entitled to a contingency fee of one-third of the debt collected, plus costs. In May 2000, Mr. Chin received $8,190 as partial payment of the debt owed to Client C, and the funds were deposited into Mr. Chin's trust account. Mr. Chin's spouse withdrew $8,000 of those funds for personal use without Client C's knowledge, consent, or authorization. Mr. Chin subsequently received five additional payments on the debt totaling $7,548. One payment of $1,500 was disbursed to the client; the remainder was deposited into Mr. Chin's general account rather than the trust account. In July 2000, Mr. Chin's spouse deposited $7,860 in unidentified funds from Mr. Chin's general account into the trust account to pay Client C its share of the collected proceeds.
Matter 5: From July 2001 to July 2003, the Bar Association requested information from Mr. Chin relating to overdraft notices indicating that his trust account was overdrawn. Mr. Chin designated responsibility for responding to the grievance to his spouse. Mr. Chin's spouse provided inaccurate information to the Bar Association, including client ledger cards and a check register that were fabricated for purposes of responding to the requests for information. Mr. Chin knew there was delay in providing the requested information and failed to ensure that accurate information was provided in a timely way.
Mr. Chin did not have actual knowledge that his spouse was disbursing and using client funds from his trust account, and all client funds have been paid to the clients or subrogated interests.
Mr. Chin's conduct violated RPC 1.14(a), requiring that all funds of a client paid to a lawyer be deposited into an identifiable interest-bearing trust account and that no funds belonging to the lawyer be deposited therein except as permitted by rule; RPC 1.14(b)(3), requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client and to render appropriate accounts regarding them; RPC 5.3(a), requiring that a partner in a law firm make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that a nonlawyer assistant's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; RPC 5.3(b), requiring a lawyer with direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer assistant to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer from violating a duty imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct; and former Rule for Lawyer Discipline 2.8(a), requiring a lawyer to promptly respond to any inquiry or request for information relevant to grievances.
Jonathan H. Burke represented the Bar Association. Kurt M. Bulmer represented Mr. Chin. |