| Description: |
Joseph P. Whitney (WSBA No. 24073, admitted 1994), of Port Gamble, was disbarred, effective September 29, 2005, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2002 involving false testimony under oath and failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation. For additional information see In re Discipline of Whitney, 155 Wn.2d 451, 120 P.3d 550 (2005).
In 2001, Mr. Whitney was appointed by the superior court to serve as a guardian ad litem (GAL) for two minor children. The children were the subject of a contested proceeding involving the modification of child support and the revision of a parenting plan. Mr. Whitney received a $1,000 retainer ($500 from each party) for services he was to render and agreed to accept the case for that amount as a flat fee. As a GAL, Mr. Whitney’s responsibilities included, inter alia, interviewing persons with knowledge of the children and preparing a report upon completion of his investigation in order to assist the court in making a placement decision. Mr. Whitney’s report mentioned the school activities of the two children. At the February 2002 modification trial, Mr. Whitney testified under oath that he had interviewed three teachers at the children’s school. In response to questioning, Mr. Whitney provided specific information, which he claimed he had obtained from the teachers. The three teachers testified at the trial that they had never met with or spoken to Mr. Whitney. In response to the apparent disharmony in the trial testimony, the superior court judge stated, “I think [the] teachers forgot that Joe Whitney called them,” and, “I believe Mr. Whitney that he called them.”
After the trial, one of the teachers and the children’s father filed grievances with the Bar Association, alleging that Mr. Whitney had lied under oath. Mr. Whitney failed to respond. In September 2002, disciplinary counsel notified Mr. Whitney that if he did not respond, he would be subpoenaed and required to pay the costs of a deposition. Despite this warning, Mr. Whitney failed to respond and was, consequently, deposed. In his deposition, Mr. Whitney again testified that he had spoken to the three teachers.
At the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer found that “Mr. Whitney’s testimony was not credible....” He also found that the testimony of the teachers was “very credible and [that] they had no personal motivation to lie.”
Mr. Whitney’s conduct violated RPC 3.3(a)(1), prohibiting a lawyer from making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; RPC 3.3(a)(4), prohibiting a lawyer from offering evidence that the lawyer knows to be false; RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting the commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer from violating a duty imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct (here, ELC 5.3(e) and (f), requiring a lawyer to promptly respond to any inquiry or request for information relevant to grievances); and former RLD 2.8(a), requiring a lawyer to promptly respond to any inquiry or request for information relevant to grievances.
Linda B. Eide and Elizabeth A. Turner represented the Bar Association. Mr. Whitney represented himself at the hearing. David G. “Arthur” Wecker represented Mr. Whitney on appeal to the Supreme Court. J.C. Becker was the hearing officer. |