| Description: |
Robert H. Larson (WSBA No. 1385, admitted 1965), of Bangkok, Thailand, was ordered to receive a reprimand on October 21, 2004, following a stipulation approved by a hearing officer. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2001 and 2002 involving failure to inform a tribunal of all relevant facts in an ex parte matter and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
In 2001, Mr. Larson was hired to pursue a cause of action for unlawful trespass for cutting trees and shrubs. The alleged trespass had been committed by an individual (hereinafter referred to as “F.A.”) who resided on property adjacent to the client’s property. Mr. Larson commenced an action against the property owners but did not name F.A., who resided on the adjacent property but did not own it.
F.A. hired a lawyer who, in July 2001, notified Mr. Larson that he represented the individual who had committed the acts alleged in the lawsuit. F.A.’s lawyer notified Mr. Larson that he would be asserting a number of defenses and that F.A. should be substituted as the sole defendant. Mr. Larson subsequently received a notice of appearance filed by F.A.’s lawyer.
In September 2001, Mr. Larson obtained an order adding F.A. as a defendant. The order reflected that F.A. was the individual who allegedly cut down the trees and shrubs as agent for the property owners. In October 2001, F.A.’s lawyer filed and served an answer.
By letter, Mr. Larson subsequently informed F.A.’s lawyer that he was filing a motion for default against the property owners; the letter indicated that Mr. Larson would give F.A.’s lawyer notice if he obtained a default judgment. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Larson received F.A.’s response to the motion for default. Mr. Larson knew from reading the response that F.A. intended to contest the entry of a judgment against the property owners. On October 25, 2001, the court entered an order of default against the property owners.
Both Mr. Larson’s client and F.A. obtained expert arborists to render opinions on the issue of damages. The plaintiff’s arborist valued the damage at $12,500, while F.A.’s arborist valued the damage at $615. The matter was scheduled for arbitration in February 2002.
In January 2002, Mr. Larson obtained an ex parte default judgment against the property owners for $35,000 plus costs and fees without providing notice to anyone. Mr. Larson incorrectly believed that the Civil Rules did not require him to provide notice to obtain a default judgment since he had already obtained an order of default with notice. Mr. Larson did not recall that he had previously agreed to provide F.A.’s lawyer with notice if he sought a default judgment against the property owners.
The motion for a default judgment inaccurately stated, “Defendants were all served on September 18, 2001, and none of them have either appeared or fled an affirmative pleading.” Mr. Larson’s supporting declaration inaccurately stated that he had obtained a default order against F.A. in addition to the property owners. Mr. Larson’s declaration attached a copy of the letter from his client’s arborist expert to support the clam for damages. Mr. Larson did not supply the court with the conflicting opinion by F.A.’s arborist expert.
Mr. Larson never notified the defendant property owners about the default judgment after it was entered. In February 2002, Mr. Larson obtained an ex parte order for voluntary dismissal. The order of dismissal inaccurately stated that the “action” is dismissed without prejudice, and that “no costs are awarded to any party.” Mr. Larson subsequently sent the order of dismissal to F.A.’s lawyer together with a letter stating that “my clients have decided not to go forward with the arbitration and have directed me to non-suit this matter.”
In August 2002, F.A.’s lawyer discovered that a judgment lien had been filed by the plaintiff against the property owned by the other defendants. F.A.’s lawyer reminded Mr. Larson of his October 2001 assurance that he would provide notice if he attempted to obtain a default judgment and asked Mr. Larson to vacate the default judgment. Mr. Larson refused to vacate the default judgment or correct the inaccurate statements in his pleadings.
F.A.’s lawyer filed a motion to vacate the default judgment. Finding that the default judgment was improper, the court vacated the judgment in September 2002 and assessed $2,760 in Civil Rule 11 sanctions plus $108.50 in costs jointly against Mr. Larson and his clients. Mr. Larson personally paid the sanctions and costs.
The matter proceeded to arbitration, after which a judgment for $1,924 plus $871 in costs was awarded to the plaintiff against all the defendants.
Mr. Larson’s conduct violated RPC 3.3(f), requiring that, in an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer inform the tribunal of all relevant facts known to the lawyer that should be disclosed to permit the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse; and RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Jonathan H. Burke represented the Bar Association. Kurt M. Bulmer represented Mr. Larson. James C. Lawrie was the hearing officer. |