| Description: |
Richard A. Crews (WSBA No. 27895, admitted 1998), of Portland, Oregon, was disbarred, effective August 26, 2005, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline based on an order of the Oregon State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct between 2000 and 2004 involving neglect of client matters, failure to take steps on termination of representation to protect client interests, communicating false information to clients about the status of their matters, forgery, falsification of documents, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
Matter 1: Mr. Crews was hired by a client to initiate a lawsuit for breach of contract, conversion, and unlawful trade practices in connection with restoration of a car. Mr. Crews commenced the lawsuit, which was dismissed in January 2001 for lack of jurisdiction over the defendant. Mr. Crews failed to inform the client of the dismissal; he instead falsely suggested to the client that the lawsuit was pending and moving towards settlement. In mid-2001, Mr. Crews prepared and provided the client with falsified settlement papers, onto which he had forged the adverse party’s signature. Subsequently, the client received a notice that the adverse party had asserted a lien on the car in question and would sell it at a public auction. Thereafter, Mr. Crews falsely informed the client that the car could not be sold because the lawsuit was still pending. In 2002, Mr. Crews falsely told the client that he had seized and sold property belonging to the defendant and was waiting for the sale to be recorded before forwarding the proceeds to the client.
Matter 2: Mr. Crews was retained by a client to handle several different cases:
• In March 2002, Mr. Crews filed a wrongful-arrest lawsuit on behalf of the client. The defendants moved for summary judgment. Just before the hearing, Mr. Crews falsely informed his client that the hearing had been cancelled and that the defendants had filed a notice of appeal. Thereafter, Mr. Crews prepared and provided the client with a falsified notice of appeal, onto which he had forged the signature of the defendant’s lawyer.
• The client also hired Mr. Crews to assist him in resolving a dispute with a mortgage company. In July 2003, after advising his client to stop making mortgage payments, Mr. Crews commenced a lawsuit against the mortgage company in federal district court. When the defendant threatened to foreclose on the client’s property, Mr. Crews sent the client a restraining order that purportedly prohibited the foreclosure. Mr. Crews had in fact falsified the order and forged the judge’s name on it.
• In mid-January 2004, Mr. Crews recommended that the client file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. The client informed Mr. Crews that he wanted to discuss the matter in person before filing. Without authority from the client, Mr. Crews commenced a Chapter 7 proceeding on the client’s behalf. In February 2004, Mr. Crews informed the client that he would be withdrawing from the representation.
Matter 3: In May 2002, a client hired Mr. Crews to represent him in a wrongful-termination claim. The client instructed Mr. Crews to file a lawsuit and provided him with funds to do so. Between October 2002 and September 2003, Mr. Crews failed to pursue the matter. He falsely told the client that the lawsuit had been filed and was moving forward. In September 2003, Mr. Crews filed the lawsuit but thereafter failed to pursue it.
Matter 4: In April 2003, Mr. Crews was hired by a client injured in an automobile accident. After filing a lawsuit, Mr. Crews failed to pursue the legal matter and failed to maintain adequate communication with the client. In February 2004, the court notified Mr. Crews that the lawsuit would be dismissed for failure to comply with arbitration rules. Mr. Crews neither responded to the notice nor informed his client of the pending dismissal. Beginning in early 2004, the client made numerous requests for the return of his file, to which Mr. Crews never responded.
Matter 5: In July 2003, a former client filed a complaint with the Oregon State Bar regarding Mr. Crews’s conduct. Disciplinary counsel proceeded to investigate the complaint and, in December 2003, requested information. Mr. Crews failed to respond to the request. In the four above-mentioned matters, the clients filed complaints with the Oregon State Bar. Mr. Crews did not respond to disciplinary counsel’s inquiries and failed to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
Mr. Crews’s conduct violated Oregon DR 1-102(A)(2), prohibiting a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice law; DR 1-102(A)(3), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; DR 1-103(C), requiring a lawyer who is the subject of a disciplinary investigation to respond fully and truthfully to inquiries from and comply with reasonable requests of a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon the conduct of lawyers; DR 6-101(B), prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer; DR 9-101(C)(4) requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or deliver to a client as requested by the client the funds, securities, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive; Washington RPC 1.15(d), requiring that a lawyer take reasonably practicable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation; RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Felice P. Congalton represented the Bar Association. Mr. Crews was not represented by counsel. |