| Description: |
Robert E. Brandt (WSBA No. 23058, admitted 1993), of Bothell, was disbarred, effective September 19, 2006, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board. In entering into the stipulation, Mr. Brandt agreed that if the matter were to proceed to a public hearing, there was a substantial likelihood that the Bar Association would be able to prove, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, the facts and misconduct described therein (and summarized herein). The discipline was based on his conduct in 2004 involving conflicts of interest, trust account irregularities, failure to comply with discovery requests, false statements, failure to adequately supervise a nonlawyer employee, commission of a criminal act, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Mr. Brandt operated a high-volume real estate escrow business, known as Escrow Authority, which was the assumed business name of Mr. Brandt’s law firm/professional corporation. Escrow Authority was Mr. Brandt’s primary business; he handled only a few legal matters for family and friends. Mr. Brandt used his law firm’s trust account to receive and disburse funds associated with the real estate closings handled by Escrow Authority, which operated two limited liability corporations out of the Escrow Authority office, as well as several branch offices.
In June 2005, the Kirkland Police Department executed a search warrant on Escrow Authority’s Kirkland office and seized some of its business records. Subsequently, it was discovered that there was a shortage of about $3 million in Mr. Brandt’s trust account. This shortage was allegedly due to the theft by one or more of Mr. Brandt’s employees. Mr. Brandt could not account for the shortfall, which resulted in the filing of a number of grievances against him. The following conduct, which did not arise from the theft of trust account funds, established grounds for discipline:
• Failing to maintain complete records of client funds in the trust account and failing to provide an accounting of trust account funds;
• Failing to reimburse funds to a client when requested;
• Failing to maintain client funds in a trust account, to properly review trust account records, and to supervise his staff in handling these records;
• Falsely stating under oath that he did not have malpractice insurance;
• Permitting an employee to handle a real estate closing when the employee was the purchaser and reseller of the real property;
• Failing to disclose to parties in three different matters that the limited liability corporation and Escrow Authority, to which they were paying various fees, were his businesses and that the fees were being paid to him;
• Failing to ensure that the conduct of employees handling client escrow funds was compatible with Mr. Brandt’s professional obligations as a lawyer, such as ensuring that documents were being notarized by persons having personal contact with the parties, that closing disbursements were not being made until after the recording of the deeds, and that tax payments and any promised reimbursement for tax penalties were promptly made;
• Failing to promptly disburse funds from the trust account in accordance with escrow instructions.
Mr. Brandt’s conduct violated RPC 1.5(b), requiring that when a lawyer has not regularly represented the client, or if the fee agreement is substantially different than that previously used by the parties, the basis or rate of the fee or factors involved in determining the charges for legal services and the lawyer’s billing practices shall be communicated to the client, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation; RPC 1.7(b), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer’s own interests, unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be affected and the client consents in writing after consultation and a full disclosure in writing of the material facts; RPC 1.14(a), requiring that all funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law firm, including advances for costs and expenses, be deposited in one or more identifiable interest-bearing trust accounts and that no funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm be deposited therein; RPC 1.14(b)(3), requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to his or her client regarding them; RPC 1.14(b)(4), requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by a client the funds, securities, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive; RPC 1.15(d), requiring a lawyer to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation; RPC 3.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer, in pretrial procedure, from failing to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party; RPC 4.1(a), prohibiting a lawyer, in the course of representing a client, from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; RPC 5.3(a), requiring that a partner in a law firm make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that a nonlawyer assistant's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; RPC 5.3(b), requiring a lawyer with direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer assistant to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting a lawyer from committing 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 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.
Debra J. Slater represented the Bar Association. Joel E. Wright represented Mr. Brandt. Michael J. Heatherly was the hearing officer. |