| Description: |
F. Curtis Hilton (WSBA No. 4028, admitted 1958), of Lakewood, was disbarred, effective September 18, 2006, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on conduct between 1996 and 2004 involving failure to communicate with a client, lack of diligence, attempting to settle a matter without client authority, failure to expedite litigation, failure to put a contingent fee agreement in writing, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
In May 1996, Mr. Hilton was hired to represent a client in a hearing involving the forfeiture of certain personal items seized by the county sheriff’s office. The client believed Mr. Hilton was representing her pro bono. Mr. Hilton believed that he and the client had entered into a contingent fee agreement under which he was to be paid one-third of any recovery, but Mr. Hilton had neither prepared a written contingent fee agreement nor had his client sign one. After a hearing examiner upheld the forfeiture of the client’s property, Mr. Hilton filed a petition for judicial review. Mr. Hilton took no further action on the case and did not communicate with his client for the next 16 months.
In March 1998, the court issued a notice of dismissal for want of prosecution. Mr. Hilton filed a response, signed under penalty of perjury, stating, “Petitioner will immediately proceed to prosecute this claim by her undersigned counsel.” Mr. Hilton took no action in the case for another 16 months. In July 1999, the court clerk again sought to dismiss the case for want of prosecution. Mr. Hilton filed another response again stating, “Petitioner will immediately proceed to prosecute this claim by her undersigned counsel.” Mr. Hilton filed a motion to set the briefing schedule, but did not file the brief as required. In November 1999, the defendant in the case filed a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. The court denied the motion. For the next 19 months, Mr. Hilton took no action. In June 2001, the court clerk issued another notice of dismissal for want of prosecution. Mr. Hilton again filed a declaration stating, “Petitioner will immediately proceed to prosecute this claim by her undersigned counsel.”
In June 2001 and February 2003, the client sent Mr. Hilton letters in which she informed him of her current address and requested information about her case. Mr. Hilton did not respond. In August 2003, in response to another dismissal for want of prosecution from the court clerk, Mr. Hilton filed a motion requesting a briefing schedule. At that point, the deputy prosecuting attorney sent Mr. Hilton a letter indicating his willingness to discuss a settlement. The letter offered an equal distribution of the proceeds of the seized property, but stated that the offer would only be held open for a brief period. Mr. Hilton did not communicate the settlement offer to his client. In October 2003, the court clerk issued another dismissal notice.
In December 2003, Mr. Hilton and the deputy prosecutor reached agreement on the terms of a settlement. Mr. Hilton did not tell his client of the settlement offer or that he was accepting it. Over the next two weeks, the deputy prosecutor twice sent Mr. Hilton a proposed agreed order of dismissal and a settlement agreement to be signed by both Mr. Hilton and his client. Mr. Hilton did not present the documents to his client or return them to the deputy prosecutor. Mr. Hilton informed the court that the case had been settled. On January 26, 2004, the court informed the parties that the case would be dismissed if settlement papers were not filed by February 13. The deputy prosecutor sent Mr. Hilton two letters advising him that the settlement offer would be withdrawn and that he would request the court to dismiss the case if the papers were not signed and returned to him. Mr. Hilton did not respond to either letter and did not inform his client about the situation.
In April 2004, the court dismissed the case on its own motion. Mr. Hilton did not tell his client that her case had been dismissed. She learned about the dismissal after reviewing the docket for her case online. In response to an e-mail from the client, Mr. Hilton advised her that the case had been settled and that he held a bank draft in his file for $1,500. Mr. Hilton met with the client shortly thereafter, at which time Mr. Hilton admitted that he only had a draft of the settlement agreement and agreed order of dismissal in his file, not a bank draft for $1,500. Mr. Hilton then had his client sign the settlement agreement, without telling her that the settlement offer had been withdrawn. He transmitted the signed agreement to the deputy prosecutor with a request to remit settlement funds. The deputy prosecutor replied that the offer had been withdrawn in March 2004 and that he would no longer honor the settlement proposal.
Mr. Hilton’s conduct violated RPC 1.2(a), requiring a lawyer to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued, and to abide by a client’s decision whether to accept an offer of settlement of a matter; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4, requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; RPC 1.5(c)(1), requiring that a contingent fee be in writing; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; RPC 8.4(a), prohibiting a lawyer from attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
M. Craig Bray and Debra J. Slater represented the Bar Association. Mr. Hilton represented himself. William J. Murphy was the hearing officer. |