| Description: |
Eric C. Hoort (WSBA No. 29360, admitted 1999), of Seattle, was ordered to receive a reprimand on September 2, 2005, following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2002 involving failure to commence an action prior to expiration of the statute of limitations.
At a meeting on June 15, 2002, a client hired Mr. Hoort to represent him in a wrongful termination matter. The client's employment had been terminated for being absent without leave after his arrest and incarceration for attempted murder. The client was ultimately acquitted of the attempted murder charge and released from custody. While still incarcerated, the client had sent a letter to his union explaining that the termination was not justified and requesting that the union file a grievance on his behalf. By letter dated January 15, 2002, the union replied that it would not pursue a grievance relating to the termination. At the June 15 meeting, the client paid Mr. Hoort $200 and gave him a file containing documents relating to the dispute, including a copy of the January 15 letter from the union.
Mr. Hoort knew that the statute of limitations for a "hybrid" action brought against an employer and a union is six months, beginning from when the employee first knew or should have known the union would not grieve the termination. At the latest, the six-month limitation period on the client's claim would run no later than mid-July 2002. Mr. Hoort neither clearly advised the client of the date on which the statute would run nor calendared a date for the expiration of the limitation period. Mr. Hoort did not write any letters to the client's former employer or the union, and he did not file a lawsuit on the client's behalf. In August 2002, the client sent to Mr. Hoort $500. In September 2002, the client wrote a letter to Mr. Hoort inquiring about the status of the case. By letter dated October 4, 2002, Mr. Hoort replied that, after extensive research, he had determined that the limitation period had lapsed some four months prior to the client contacting his office and, as a result, he would not be able to pursue a wrongful termination action on the client's behalf. Enclosed with the letter were file materials and a money order for $500. Mr. Hoort's statement in the October 4 letter about the timing of the expiration of the statute of limitations was incorrect.
Mr. Hoort's conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; and RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.
Nancy B. Miller represented the Bar Association. Kurt M. Bulmer represented Mr. Hoort. Teena M. Killian was the hearing officer. |