| Description: |
Andrew Mankowski (WSBA No. 22999, admitted 1993) of Phoenix, Arizona, was suspended for six months and a day, effective September 29, 2005, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline in accordance with an order of the Supreme Court of Arizona. This discipline was based on his conduct between 2002 and 2004 in 10 client matters and his failure to cooperate with the State Bar of Arizona's disciplinary investigations.
Between January 2002 and March 2004, Mr. Mankowski engaged in the following conduct that established grounds for discipline:
• Failing to respond to clients' calls, failing to keep scheduled appointments with clients, and failing to keep clients informed about the status of their cases.
• Failing to provide a client with new contact information after leaving the law firm where he was employed.
• Failing to reasonably expedite litigation and misplacing documents from a client file.
• Failing to reschedule a hearing upon request of a client, failing to inform the client of rescheduled hearing dates, and failing to attend scheduled hearings.
• Failing to submit a response to a court order requesting a written explanation as to why he did not appear at a scheduled hearing, and failing to respond to a court order and the State Bar of Arizona's request requiring a written response to a client's petition seeking to compel his withdrawal from the client's case.
• Failing to attend scheduled depositions and independent medical examinations.
• Failing to respond to written discovery requests, telephone calls from defense counsel, and multiple motions to compel discovery, and failure to comply with resulting discovery orders.
• Falsely informing clients that papers had been filed and served when they had not, failing to file paperwork, and failing to serve a protective order.
• Failing to file a divorce decree as ordered by the court and, once the decree was filed, failing to respond to the client's request to correct multiple errors in the decree.
• Failing to perform any work in a case.
• Refusing to withdraw from cases after clients had fired him.
• Failing to return client files and property upon request of the clients after termination of the representation.
• Failing to refund unused portions of fees or render accountings upon client request after termination of the representation.
• Failing to respond to letters and requests from the State Bar of Arizona during the screening of client grievances and during ensuing disciplinary investigations.
Mr. Mankowski's conduct violated ER 1.2 of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, requiring a lawyer to abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and to consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued; ER 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; ER 1.4, requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; ER 1.5, requiring that a lawyer's fee be reasonable; ER 1.16, requiring that a lawyer withdraw from the representation of a client if the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law, if the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client, or if the lawyer is discharged, and requiring a lawyer to protect a client's interest on termination of representation; ER 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; ER 3.3(a)(1), prohibiting a lawyer from making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; ER 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; ER 4.1, prohibiting a lawyer from making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; ER 4.4, prohibiting a lawyer in the representation of a client from using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third party; ER 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; ER 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation; 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; Rule 53(c) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona (Ariz. R. S. Ct.), prohibiting a lawyer from willful violation of any rule or any court order; Ariz. R. S. Ct. 53(d), prohibiting a lawyer from evading service or refusing to cooperate with officials and staff of the state bar acting in the course of such a person's duties; and Ariz. R. S. Ct. 53(f), prohibiting a lawyer from failing to furnish information to or respond promptly to any inquiry or request from bar counsel for information relevant to complaints.
Felice P. Congalton represented the Bar Association. Mr. Mankowski was not represented by counsel. |