| Description: |
Spokane lawyer James J. Barlow (WSBA No. 17596, admitted 1988) has been ordered suspended for two years, pursuant to a stipulation for discipline approved by the Disciplinary Board on September 26, 1997. The discipline is based upon multiple counts of failure to act diligently or communicate with his clients, and ultimately, the abandonment of his practice, in violation of RPC 1.3 (duty to act diligently) and 1.4 (duty to keep client reasonably informed); withdrawal from the representation of a client without reasonable notice, in violation of RPC 1.15 (duties upon withdrawal); conversion of a $200 check for sanctions made out to him and his client, in violation of RPC 1.14 (preserving client property) and 8.4(c) (dishonest conduct); and failure to pay court-ordered sanctions, in violation of RPC 8.4(d) (interference with the administration of justice).
In one matter, Barlow was appointed to represent an indigent defendant in his criminal appeal. The Court of Appeals set a due date for appellant’s brief of July 22, 1996. By September 27, 1996, despite three warning letters from the Court of Appeals, Barlow still had not filed the brief. The court imposed terms of $100, and set the matter on the docket to dismiss the appeal as abandoned due to his failure to file an opening brief. The commissioner denied the motion to dismiss, but remanded for appointment of new appellate counsel. Barlow never paid the $100 sanction.
In a second matter, a client hired Barlow in connection with a dispute with her auto insurer, who was refusing to cover damages arising from her daughter’s collision with a fence. She paid him $500. He failed to take any action on her case. The matter eventually went to a collection agency, and the client was forced to pay an additional $214.22 in fees and costs. In addition, although Barlow returned the client’s fees and her file, the file was missing critical documents.
In a third matter, Barlow had a contract with the Spokane County Public Defender’s office to handle dependency cases when that office had a conflict of interest. In December 1996, he was appointed to represent a woman in a dependency matter after her newborn daughter had been removed from her custody. He performed some work on the case initially, but in February 1997 he ceased work on it and broke off communications with the client. A new lawyer was appointed to represent the client and resolved the matter.
In a fourth matter, a client hired Barlow to obtain a dissolution from his wife, who lived in Italy, and to defend an action brought by OSE for post-majority support of the couple’s two children, which was based on an Italian decree. The client paid him $2,500, and signed a blank dissolution form on December 11, 1995. Barlow did not provide the client with a copy of the summons and petition to serve on his wife as agreed until April 1996, and did not file the affidavit of service until nearly four months after he received it. In addition, he failed to take any action with respect to a statement of lien from OSE, resulting in the garnishment of a portion of the client’s pension beginning October 1996. Barlow withdrew from representing the client shortly thereafter, effective immediately. The client retained new counsel to resolve the matter.
In a fifth matter, Barlow was appointed to represent an indigent defendant in his criminal appeal. He filed his opening brief in July 1995. On August 7, 1996, the Court of Appeals directed him to serve a copy of the transcript of proceedings on the client by August 17, 1996, because the client had filed a notice of intent to file a pro se supplemental brief. By October 8, 1996, despite two warning letters from the Court of Appeals, Barlow still had not served the transcript. The court imposed terms of $100. The client received the transcript on January 14, 1997. On January 27, 1997, the court granted appellant’s motion to strike the brief filed by Barlow, and appointed new counsel to represent him on appeal. Barlow never paid the $100 sanction.
In a sixth matter, a client hired Barlow to defend him in a child support modification action. In March 1996, the ex-wife’s lawyer failed to appear for a court hearing, and the court assessed terms of $200 to be paid to the client. The ex-wife’s lawyer sent Barlow a check for $200, made payable to Barlow and the client. When the client asked Barlow if he ever had received the check, Barlow replied that he was keeping the check "in [the client’s] file" to be applied to outstanding legal fees. But on April 30, 1996, the check was deposited in the Spokane Federal Credit Union, which was not where Barlow maintained his trust account. It appeared to have been endorsed by both Barlow and the client, but the client said he never saw the check, and the signature on the back of the check purporting to be the client’s signature was not the client’s signature.
This client also hired Barlow to represent him in a proceeding brought by his ex-wife to recover $11,000. The client gave Barlow a check for $11,000, which was to be exchanged for a reconveyance of title, satisfying a lien. Barlow gave the check to the ex-wife’s lawyer, but never obtained the reconveyance of title and failed to return the client’s telephone calls inquiring about the matter. The client eventually hired new counsel.
In a seventh matter, on February 26, 1997, the Court of Appeals, Division Three, entered an order entitled "Order to Show Cause Why the Following Due Dates Have Not Been Met, Action Taken to Perfect These Appeals and Why Substitute Counsel Should Not Be Appointed." The order covered three criminal appellate matters and six dependency matters in which due dates had not been met or action taken to perfect the appeals. Barlow did not attend the hearing, and the court appointed new counsel.
In February 1997, Barlow abandoned his practice upon becoming hospitalized.
Marc R. Roecks represented Barlow. Disciplinary Counsel Joanne S. Abelson represented the Bar Association.
|