| Description: |
G. Thomas Ryan (WSBA No. 9634, admitted 1979), of Puyallup, was ordered to receive a reprimand on March 13, 2006, following a stipulation approved by a hearing officer. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2005 involving lack of diligence and failure to communicate with a client.
In January 2005, Mr. Ryan was hired by clients who wanted to petition for custody of their grandchild. According to the clients, they asked Mr. Ryan to file the petition by January 24, 2005, and he agreed to do so. The clients paid Mr. Ryan $2,700 for advance fees and costs. Between January 24 and January 27, the clients called Mr. Ryan’s office many times. He did not take or return any of their telephone calls.
In early February, the biological father, who had custody of the child, took the child out of state to visit his parents. On February 9, Mr. Ryan filed the clients’ nonparental custody petition, noted a hearing on the petition for February 28, 2005, and obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) immediately restraining the parents from having contact with the child and placing him in the clients’ custody. Mr. Ryan had the child’s mother served with the petition, but the process server could not personally serve the child’s father because he was out of state visiting his parents. Mr. Ryan had not obtained an order authorizing peace officers to remove the child from either of the parents’ custody (a pick-up order). Without a pick-up order, the TRO was unenforceable. The clients asked Mr. Ryan to obtain a pick-up order. Mr. Ryan declined to do so. He met with the clients and informed them that Child Protective Services (CPS) had filed a recommendation that the mother be awarded custody of the child. Mr. Ryan recommended that the clients strike the hearing date based on the CPS letter. The clients disagreed with his recommendation.
A lawyer for the mother entered a notice of appearance in the proceeding and filed responsive pleadings, which were voluminous and contained several declarations refuting the allegations set for the in the clients’ nonparental custody petition. The mother asked the court to dismiss the petition and requested an award of attorney’s fees for having to respond to a frivolous petition. Mr. Ryan did not extensively review the responsive pleadings before the hearing. At the hearing, the commissioner determined that the nonparental custody petition could not be considered because Mr. Ryan had not provided the court with the clients’ DCFS/CPS background checks or criminal background checks as required by statute. The commissioner entered an order placing the child with his mother, directing Mr. Ryan to file the background checks, and ordering a new hearing to take place within 60 days. The mother’s motion to dismiss and request for attorney’s fees was also to be heard at that time.
After the hearing, the clients waited outside the courtroom to speak with Mr. Ryan, but they could not locate him. After waiting a week for Mr. Ryan to contact them and discuss the next steps, the clients made several attempts to contact Mr. Ryan. He did not return any of their telephone messages. During one attempt, Mr. Ryan answered the telephone, and the client expressed dissatisfaction with the representation and told Mr. Ryan to do the job correctly or refund the fee. Mr. Ryan told the client he would discuss the case with her after she calmed down. During the following week, he did not return any of their calls.
In March 2005, the clients filed a grievance with the Bar Association. In Mr. Ryan’s written response to the grievance, he stated that he intended to withdraw from the case. Mr. Ryan did not tell the clients he intended to withdraw and did not file a notice of withdrawal. He did not obtain the DCFS/CPS background checks or the criminal background checks as required by the commissioner’s February 28 order.
On June 2, the child’s mother filed a motion to dismiss the case and for attorney’s fees, noting the motion for a hearing on June 10, 2005. Mr. Ryan did not immediately notify his clients about the pending hearing. On the afternoon of June 8, he mailed them a copy of the motion to dismiss and supporting documentation. Included in the mailing were Mr. Ryan’s notice of intent to withdraw and his response to the motion to dismiss. The response consisted of a motion for a three-week continuance on grounds that Mr. Ryan was withdrawing as counsel of record. Under the terms of notice, Mr. Ryan’s withdrawal was effective on July 22, 2005, although he did not intend to do any further legal work for the clients. The clients received this information the evening before the hearing.
Meanwhile, on June 7, 2005, disciplinary counsel informed the clients about the hearing on June 10. The clients called several lawyers listed in the Yellow Pages, asking if any of them would represent them at the hearing. A lawyer agreed to accompany the clients to the hearing, although she told them she could not file a notice of appearance, as Mr. Ryan was still the attorney of record. Mr. Ryan did not appear at the June 10 hearing, at which the commissioner entered an order continuing the motion to dismiss in order to give the new lawyer time to respond. The order indicated that the court would grant the mother’s request for attorney’s fees. In August 2005, the commissioner entered an order dismissing the nonparental custody petition and awarding the mother $3,510.50 for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending against the petition.
Mr. Ryan’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4(a), requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and RPC 1.4(b), requiring a lawyer to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
Leslie C. Allen represented the Bar Association. Mr. Ryan represented himself. James M. Danielson was the hearing officer. |