| Description: |
Christopher P. Eichhorn (WSBA No. 7427, admitted 1977), of Tacoma, was suspended for two years, effective November 7, 2005, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board. This discipline was based on his conduct between 1998 and 2001 involving failure to communicate with and diligently represent a client, charging an unreasonable fee, failure to expedite litigation, failure to deposit client funds into a trust account, and failure to comply with duties on suspension.
Matter 1: In July 1998, Mr. Eichhorn commenced representing a client in a dissolution of marriage matter. The client agreed to pay Mr. Eichhorn an hourly fee to be deducted from all payments received. This fee agreement was not put in writing. The client paid Mr. Eichhorn $650. Even though the fee was not fully earned, Mr. Eichhorn deposited it into his general business account.
In October 1998, a temporary order was entered prohibiting the client's husband from withdrawing approximately $30,000 in funds acquired by refinancing the family home. In mid-1999, Mr. Eichhorn and his client became aware that the husband was planning to move to Korea and that his lawyer planned to withdraw by June 1999. Mr. Eichhorn advised his client to seek a contempt order for the husband's failure to preserve the $30,000, and to do so while the husband was still represented. The client agreed and instructed Mr. Eichhorn to proceed before June 1999. Mr. Eichhorn did not file the motion until July 1999. The court ruled that the client's husband had failed to comply with the temporary order and directed the husband to deposit $30,000 into the court registry. The husband failed to account for the funds or deposit them into the court registry. The client called Mr. Eichhorn every few months. Mr. Eichhorn occasionally returned the calls and told her they should start working on her case again.
The dissolution trial was held in October 2000. After the trial, Mr. Eichhorn told the client that he would file the final dissolution paperwork by Thanksgiving 2000. When that did not happen, he told her he would finalize the dissolution by Christmas 2000. When that did not happen, the client reminded Mr. Eichhorn that she planned to remarry in April 2001; Mr. Eichhorn assured her that he would finalize her dissolution by then. The client continued to leave Mr. Eichhorn telephone messages, to which he did not respond. The client and her future husband went to Mr. Eichhorn's office in February 2001 owing to concern about the delay. In March 2001, Mr. Eichhorn filed the final paperwork with the court.
After the dissolution was final, the client, who had paid Mr. Eichhorn $4,650, requested an itemized bill. Mr. Eichhorn told her the bill was around $3,000 and agreed to send it to her in writing. Mr. Eichhorn had not maintained contemporaneous time records while working on her case, and he never sent a written bill, an itemized statement, or any refund.
Matter 2: Effective November 10, 1998, Mr. Eichhorn was suspended from the practice of law for 45 days following a stipulation to discipline in another matter. In December 1998, as required by the former Rules for Lawyer Discipline, Mr. Eichhorn submitted to the Bar Association an affidavit of compliance with his duties on suspension, listing clients and opposing counsel who had been notified of his suspension. Neither the above-mentioned client nor the husband's lawyer appeared on the list. Neither individual had been informed of the suspension or knew that Mr. Eichhorn was prohibited from practicing law during the 45-day period.
Mr. Eichhorn's conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4(a), requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; 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 1.5(a), requiring a lawyer's fee to be reasonable; RPC 1.5(b), requiring a lawyer who has not regularly represented a client to communicate to the client the basis or rate of the fee or factors involved in determining the charges for services and the lawyer's billing practices; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; RPC 1.14(a), requiring all funds of clients paid to a lawyer be deposited into an interest-bearing trust account; RPC 1.14(b), requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records of client funds and properties and render appropriate accounts regarding them, and to promptly pay or deliver upon request funds or properties belonging to the client; and former Rule for Lawyer Discipline 8.1(c), delineating a lawyer's duties on suspension, including the duty to notify all clients involved in litigation and the lawyer for each adverse party of the suspension and the reason therefore, and of the lawyer's consequent inability to act after the effective date of the suspension.
Marsha A. Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. Mr. Eichhorn represented himself. |