| Description: |
Dennis F. Olsen (WSBA No. 22519, admitted 1993), formerly of Everett, was disbarred, effective September 19, 2006, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct between 2000 and 2004 involving violation of state and federal tax laws, dishonesty, lack of competence, lack of diligence, failure to communicate with a client, failure to expedite litigation, and failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation.
Matter 1: Commencing in 1999, Mr. Olsen was a principal in a succession of law firms that operated a multi-state, low-cost bankruptcy practice. The firm hired local lawyers to practice within the jurisdictions of their respective bar admissions. In 2001, after suffering financial losses in the bankruptcy venture, Mr. Olsen terminated the employment of a firm lawyer working in Portland, Oregon. The lawyer agreed to handle the firm’s Oregon cases if he had either met or provided representation to the client. When the lawyer refused to take over the representation of a client with whom he had had no contact, an argument ensued. During the argument, Mr. Olsen threatened that he would not pay taxes withheld from the lawyer’s paychecks. As a result, the lawyer filed a grievance with the Bar Association.
The lawyer did not receive a 2001 W-2 within the statutory time limit. After requesting that the firm provide him a W-2 for his 2001 earnings, the lawyer belatedly received a W-2 on which the employer was identified as a defunct predecessor firm and that reflected an invalid employer tax ID number and an incorrect employer address. A second W-2 was later issued for 2001, reflecting all of the tax withholding deductions from the lawyer’s 2001 pay and the correct employer information. During the ensuing disciplinary hearing, Mr. Olsen admitted that he had not paid state or federal tax authorities the taxes withheld from the lawyer’s salary in 2000 or 2001, and that he had not refunded the withheld money to the lawyer. The funds withheld totaled at least $11,398.70. Mr. Olsen also admitted to having filed amended returns that claimed under penalty of perjury that he had paid the lawyer the full amount of his gross wages when, in fact, withholding had occurred. These additional amended returns were filed by Mr. Olsen and submitted to the Bar Association in an attempt to mislead the Bar Association in its investigation.
Matter 2: On April 7, 2000, Mr. Olsen met with and agreed to represent a client in an immigration matter for a $1,500 fee. In March 2000, the Board of Immigration Appeals had affirmed an immigration judge’s denial of the client’s asylum application and issued a deportation order. The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which had been assisting the client through a volunteer lawyer, explained the client’s options in a letter dated March 30, 2000. The letter advised the client that although a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had been filed, the volunteer lawyer would no longer be available to assist the client. Other options mentioned in the letter included filing a motion to reopen a previous I-485 petition (application to register permanent residence or adjust status), or a motion to reopen the asylum application.
The agreed purpose for the representation was for Mr. Olsen to seek an adjustment of the client’s immigration status and to assist him in obtaining a green card. Mr. Olsen did not prepare a fee agreement or any description of his duties. At the initial meeting, the client paid Mr. Olsen $750 and gave him a copy of his file, which included copies of previously filed pro se petitions and applications, as well the March 30 letter from the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.
After undertaking the representation, Mr. Olsen did not take any steps to obtain the client’s INS file, to review the BIA legal files or any other public files, or to discern the action that needed to be undertaken prior to the expiration of the time to bring a motion to reopen. No motion to reopen was ever filed by Mr. Olsen, despite having had almost two months between the date hired and the deadline for filing the motion.
In January 2000, the client paid Mr. Olsen $800. Mr. Olsen completed and filed a second I-485 application and had the client pay a second I-485 penalty fee of $1,000. This second application was a useless act, since the application would not be adjudicated unless and until the client’s immigration application had been reopened by motion, and Mr. Olsen had already allowed the time to bring such a motion to pass. Additionally, the application contained several significant errors, including the incorrect assertions that the client was not married and that the client was not involved in a deportation proceeding. After filing the second I-485 application, Mr. Olsen failed to do any legal work on behalf of the client during the next eight months he represented him, and he had little or no contact with the client. The client was subsequently referred to another immigration lawyer, who accepted the case on a pro bono basis and promptly moved to reopen the asylum issue based on the fact that the client had not received effective assistance of counsel from Mr. Olsen. After reviewing the facts surrounding Mr. Olsen’s representation, INS agreed to a joint motion to reopen the earlier denial of the first I-485 application.
Matter 3: During the disciplinary investigations and proceeding arising from the above-described matters, Mr. Olsen engaged in a pattern of knowingly and willfully failing to comply with Bar Association requests for information and documents and the hearing officer’s orders regarding compliance.
Mr. Olsen’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; 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 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interest of the client; RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting a lawyer from committing a criminal act (here, violation of federal and Oregon state tax laws, and theft) 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; RPC 8.4(i), prohibiting a lawyer from committing any act involving moral turpitude, or corruption, or any unjustified act of assault or other act which reflects disregard for the rule of law; and RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer from violating a duty or sanction imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct (here, ELC 1.5; 5.3(e)(4); 5.5(c); 10.11(g); and 10.13(e)).
Marsha A. Matsumoto and Debra J. Slater represented the Bar Association. Michael S. Cullen and Leland G. Ripley represented Mr. Olsen. Donald W. Carter was the hearing officer. |