| Description: |
Vicki L. Walser (WSBA No. 25536, admitted 1995), of Valencia, CA, was suspended for two years, effective May 16, 2005, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board. This discipline was based on her conduct between 2001 and 2003 involving assistance to nonlawyers in the unauthorized practice of law, sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, failure to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary for clients to make informed decisions regarding representation, lack of diligence, and conflicts of interest.
In the fall of 2001, while working as a contract attorney for a Bellevue law firm, Ms. Walser became affiliated with an entity involved in marketing estate-planning products (hereinafter SELS). SELS sold annuities and other insurance products. SELS sought Ms. Walser’s services to assist in the preparation of “living trust packages” (LTPs) for SELS clients.
Ms. Walser began drafting between one and four LTPs per month for clients obtained through SELS. After an SELS nonlawyer agent sold an LTP to a client, the agent would forward a completed “estate planning questionnaire” to Ms. Walser. The information received from the agents included the client’s name, asset information, choice of trustees and/or beneficiaries, an engagement letter, and a check for Ms. Walser’s services. The SELS agents were not supervised by Ms. Walser or any other licensed Washington lawyer when making sales of LTPs to clients. After receiving the information, Ms. Walser would review the information and draft an LTP using an electronic template. In most instances, Ms. Walser would have a brief telephone conversation with the client to verify factual information. Following her preparation of a draft LTP, Ms. Walser would deliver the draft LTP to SELS, which in turn would deliver the LTP to the client for signature and notarization. Ms. Walser usually did not accompany the SELS agent who delivered the LTP to the client, nor did she usually inquire of SELS as to what happened when the SELS agent delivered the trust document to the client. Ms. Walser never obtained copies of a client’s executed LTP from SELS after delivery.
In one instance, in 2001, an SELS agent sold three LTPs and an annuity to a 76-year-old client. The agent collected a check for $900 made out to Ms. Walser’s firm for preparation of LTPs for the client and two of her adult sons. The agent also collected two checks totaling $6,285 made out to SELS and a related entity for “legal fees and services,” even though SELS and its related entities employed no lawyers. Ms. Walser received the $900 check and drafted LTPs for the client and the client’s two sons. The LTPs included “pour over” wills to capture assets not transferred to the living trust at the date of death. When drafting the LTP, Ms. Walser spoke with the client on the phone for several minutes to verify factual information on the estate-planning questionnaire. Ms. Walser never discussed with the client whether the LTP she had purchased was the most suitable and/or economical estate-planning option for the client’s particular needs. Ms. Walser e-mailed the draft LTPs to SELS. The SELS agent delivered the LTPs to the client. Ms. Walser did not accompany the agent on the delivery visit. The agent notarized the LTP documents prepared for the client but failed to have the client’s execution of the pour-over will witnessed by two persons, with the result that the pour-over will was legally invalid. The agent never delivered the trusts directly to the client’s two sons, and they never executed their LTPs.
In May 2003, Ms. Walser was deposed by the Washington State Office of the Attorney General as part of its investigation of SELS and its related entities for violation of consumer-protection laws. During the deposition, Ms. Walser asserted that she was present on at least one occasion where she witnessed an SELS agent providing legal advice to an SELS client. Ms. Walser terminated her affiliation with SELS several months after the deposition.
Ms. Walser’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; 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 1.7(b), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer’s own interests, unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents in writing after a full disclosure; RPC 5.4(a), prohibiting a lawyer from sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer; and RPC 5.5(b), prohibiting a lawyer from assisting a person who is not a member of the Bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
Kevin M. Bank represented the Bar Association. Ms. Walser represented herself. |