| Description: |
Barbara E. Varon (WSBA No. 17041, admitted 1987), of Bellevue, was ordered to receive a reprimand, effective August 4, 2005, following a hearing. This discipline was based on her conduct involving failure to advise a tribunal of all relevant facts in an ex parte proceeding and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
In May 2000, Ms. Varon was hired to represent a client in a child-custody and visitation-rights matter involving the client’s son, who resided in Snohomish County with the client’s ex-wife pursuant to a parenting plan filed six years earlier in a King County dissolution action. The client advised Ms. Varon that the son was undergoing psychiatric treatment at a hospital in King County. Shortly after Ms. Varon was hired, the client’s ex-wife, acting pro se, obtained a temporary order for protection from the Snohomish County Superior Court (Snohomish County TRO). The Snohomish County TRO provided, inter alia, that the King County parenting plan was temporarily suspended, and that the client was restrained from having contact with his ex-wife and his two children except as authorized by the son’s psychiatrist.
The client’s ex-wife then hired a lawyer, who notified Ms. Varon that he would be representing the ex-wife. The lawyer’s letter to Ms. Varon stated that “[t]he purpose of this letter is hopefully to ensure that there is no disruption to the treatment plan devised for [the son] by the doctors and social workers ....” After receiving the letter, Ms. Varon told her client that she would not contact opposing counsel until after she had obtained a restraining order against the client’s ex-wife. Ms. Varon then filed a petition seeking modification of the parenting plan in King County Superior Court. Among other things, the petition sought to name Ms. Varon’s client as the primary residential parent for his son. Two days later, without notifying opposing counsel or the ex-wife of the hearing, Ms. Varon sought an ex parte temporary order to restrain the ex-wife from contacting her son. Ms. Varon believed that irreparable injury could result if the ex-wife was given notice of the proceeding. Ms. Varon also believed that the ex-wife was evading service.
In support of the request, Ms. Varon submitted 84 pages of documents to the court, which included a copy of the Snohomish County TRO and opposing counsel’s letter announcing his representation. However, due to the exigencies of the ex parte calendar, the commissioner only skimmed through the exhibits, relying (pursuant to his established practice) on counsel to advise him orally of all relevant facts to permit him to render an informed decision. Ms. Varon did not orally inform the commissioner of the existence of the prior Snohomish County TRO, nor did she inform the commissioner that the opposing party was represented by counsel. Had she done so, the commissioner would have followed his usual practice and contacted the issuing court and the opposing counsel for a response prior to making his ruling. The commissioner issued the order (King County TRO) as requested by Ms. Varon, giving her client custody of his son and prohibiting the ex-wife from interfering with that custody or entering the client’s home or workplace, or his son’s daycare or school.
Soon thereafter, to resolve the two conflicting orders, Ms. Varon and the ex-wife’s lawyer appeared before a King County commissioner at an emergency hearing, after which the King County TRO order was vacated. The lawyers also appeared before a Snohomish County commissioner at hearings in May and June. As a result, the Snohomish County TRO was vacated and the cause of action dismissed. The client’s King County petition for modification of the parenting plan was ultimately granted in the client’s favor.
Ms. Varon’s conduct violated RPC 3.3(f), requiring a lawyer in an ex parte proceeding to inform the tribunal of all relevant facts known to the lawyer that should be disclosed to permit the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse; and RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Natalea Skvir represented the Bar Association. Steven R. Loitz represented Ms. Varon. Craig C. Beles was the hearing officer. |