| Description: |
Anna K. Nordtvedt (WSBA No. 15622, admitted 1986), of Marina, CA, was ordered to receive a reprimand on March 24, 2005, following a stipulation approved by a hearing officer. This discipline was based on her conduct in 2003 involving obstructing a party’s access to evidence, knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
In January 2003, an individual (hereinafter “L.B.”) provided some documents to Ms. Nordtvedt and asked her to review them. The documents included a deed, a power of attorney, a contract, and a newspaper notice to creditors. Some or all of the documents related to property that was the subject of a quiet title action pending in superior court.
Subsequently, the lawyer for the plaintiff in the quiet title action telephoned Ms. Nordtvedt and asked her about the documents. Ms. Nordtvedt declined to discuss them.
In January 2003, Ms. Nordtvedt was served with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the plaintiff’s lawyer. The subpoena commanded Ms. Nordtvedt to appear at a deposition on February 6, 2003, and produce some or all of the documents that had been delivered to her by L.B. None of those documents contained attorney-client communications between Ms. Nordtvedt and L.B.
On January 27, 2003, after she was served with the subpoena, Ms. Nordtvedt returned the documents to L.B., but Ms. Nordtvedt retained copies.
On January 28, 2003, Ms. Nordtvedt filed a motion to strike the deposition and to quash the subpoena. On January 30, 2003, a superior court judge denied the motion and ordered Ms. Nordtvedt to produce all the documents called for by the subpoena that were not attorney-client communications between her and L.B.
On February 5, 2003, the day before the scheduled deposition, L.B. came to Ms. Nordtvedt’s office and demanded that she give him the copies of the documents that she had retained. Ms. Nordtvedt acceded to the demand and gave L.B. the copies. On February 6, 2003, Ms. Nordtvedt appeared at her deposition without any of the documents called for by the subpoena duces tecum.
Mr. Nordtvedt’s conduct violated RPC 3.4(a), prohibiting a lawyer from unlawfully obstructing another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully altering, destroying, or concealing a document or other material having potential evidentiary value; RPC 3.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and RPC 8.4(j), prohibiting a lawyer from willfully disobeying or violating a court order requiring him or her to do or cease doing an act which he or she ought in good faith to do or forbear.
Scott G. Busby represented the Bar Association. J. Donald Curran represented Ms. Nordtvedt. James P. Spurgetis was the hearing officer. |