| Description: |
Hamersley S. Wright (WSBA No. 4989, admitted 1973), of Clinton, was suspended for three months, effective February 3, 2006, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board. This discipline was based on his conduct between 1996 and 2001 involving failure to diligently conclude a probate matter, failure to communicate with a client, and failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation.
In April 1996, Mr. Wright was hired to probate the estate of a Washington resident who had died intestate in 1994. The sole beneficiary of the estate was the decedent's mother. In September 1996, Mr. Wright filed a petition for administration and was appointed personal representative. Over the next nine months, Mr. Wright filed the appropriate pleadings, resolved two creditors' claims, and filed an inventory. In October 1996, the IRS sent the estate a deficiency notice for the tax year 1992, assessing the decedent $7,939.41 in estimated taxes plus accrued interest and penalties. Although the estate had sufficient assets to pay the IRS assessment, Mr. Wright did not pay or resolve the tax deficiency. In August 1998, Mr. Wright asked an accountant to prepare the decedent's 1992 tax return. In October 1998, the IRS's automated collection system notified Mr. Wright that the amount due and owing for the decedent's 1992 income taxes was $8,244.76, plus $2,112.91 in interest and penalties. At that point, the estate had sufficient assets to pay the IRS deficiency, with interest and penalties. Mr. Wright filed the 1992 tax return and enclosed a trust account check for $3,808, the accountant's estimate of taxes owed for 1992. In March 1999, the IRS sent to Mr. Wright a notice that it had adjusted the estate's gross income, taxable income, and penalty charge, and that the estate owed an additional $4,886.21 in taxes, interest, and penalties. The IRS requested payment by April 1, 1999. Mr. Wright did not pay the tax deficiency.
In August 2000, the estate beneficiary filed a grievance, in which she alleged that probate was still open, that certified mail she sent to Mr. Wright had been returned unclaimed, and that Mr. Wright would not return her phone calls. Mr. Wright did not respond to the Bar Association's request for a response to the grievance. After the Bar Association served Mr. Wright with a subpoena for a noncooperation deposition, he admitted to disciplinary counsel that the estate beneficiary had some legitimate complaints and that he had been lax in completing probate. Shortly after the deposition, Mr. Wright sent a letter to the court requesting that the probate proceedings be kept open for an additional 60 days. Mr. Wright also wrote to the beneficiary advising her about the IRS dispute and recommending that she authorize him to pay $4,000 to the IRS so that he could close the estate. Mr. Wright did not subsequently pay the $4,000 or close the estate. In March 2001, he advised the estate beneficiary that he was retiring from the practice of law. Mr. Wright hired another lawyer to conclude the probate while Mr. Wright remained the personal representative. Mr. Wright transferred the $2,085 of estate funds remaining in his trust account to the new lawyer, intending that it be used to pay the tax deficiency. The balance of the estate's assets remains held in a brokerage account. Over the following several years, the new lawyer charged the estate at least $2,085 in legal fees but did not resolve the tax issue or conclude probating the estate.
Mr. Wright'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; and ELC 5.3(e), requiring a lawyer to promptly respond to any inquiry or request made under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct for information relevant to grievances or matters under investigation.
Leslie C. Allen represented the Bar Association. Mr. Wright represented himself. |