| Description: |
Stephen B. Blanchard (WSBA No. 12294, admitted 1982), of Edmonds, was suspended for six months, effective October 12, 2006, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in two matters involving lack of diligence, failure to communicate with clients, trust account irregularities, failure to refund unearned fees, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
Matter 1: In January 1997, a married couple [Mr. and Mrs. W] hired Mr. Blanchard to help them collect on $187,592.87 in loans owed to them by one of Mrs. W’s sons. The loans were consolidated into a single promissory note secured by deeds of trust on three pieces of property. In 1996, the son had filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy and had failed to make payments on the promissory note. Through the bankruptcy, two of the properties were sold, while the third property [Lot A] remained part of the bankruptcy estate.
Mr. Blanchard told the clients that he would charge an hourly fee for the collection matter. At the end of January, Mr. Blanchard sent Mr. W a $1,578.92 bill for fees relating to a prior representation. Mr. W sent Mr. Blanchard a check for $1,500, which contained the handwritten note “Advance on Legal Service.” Mr. Blanchard deposited the check into his general account, not his trust account. At the end of February 1997, Mr. Blanchard sent Mr. W a $229.71 bill for additional fees.
In October 1998, Mr. Blanchard requested $1,000 from Mr. and Mrs. W so that he could seek authorization for the sale of Lot A. Mr. Blanchard received the check and deposited it into his general account, but he did not pursue the foreclosure on Lot A.
In April 1999, Mr. W died. Mrs. W and her other son met with Mr. Blanchard in August 1999, during which she requested paperwork regarding the money her husband had paid to Mr. Blanchard. Mr. Blanchard said he would send an accounting. He did not provide an accounting or any paperwork regarding the money paid, and he had no further contact with Mrs. W.
Between 1999 and 2001, Mrs. W’s son wrote five letters to Mr. Blanchard requesting an accounting and a refund. Mr. Blanchard received all five letters, but failed to respond or provide an accounting or refund. Mr. Blanchard did not have any records to demonstrate that he earned the $770.29 difference that was paid in October 1998 in excess of the $229.71 billed. In March 2001, Mrs. W’s son’s bankruptcy closed and Lot A was distributed back to him. Subsequently, another lawyer assisted Mrs. W in foreclosing the deed of trust.
In December 2001, Mrs. W filed a grievance with the Bar Association and was referred to fee arbitration. Mr. Blanchard failed to respond to Mrs. W’s fee arbitration petition, and she renewed the grievance in November 2002. Mr. Blanchard did not respond to the grievance until served with a subpoena duces tecum.
Matter 2: In August 2002, a client hired Mr. Blanchard to represent him in a dissolution action. The client informed Mr. Blanchard that he wished the dissolution to move along as quickly as possible. The primary issue was the division of the parties’ property. Mr. Blanchard and the client agreed that Mr. Blanchard would charge an hourly fee of $175 per hour. No written fee agreement was executed. The client paid Mr. Blanchard an initial $750.
At the end of August, Mr. Blanchard had the client sign dissolution pleadings he had prepared. On the same day, Mr. Blanchard filed the summons and petition for dissolution. However, the petition did not contain the client’s signature. Mr. Blanchard never filed a petition that was signed by the client.
The lawyer representing the opposing party informed Mr. Blanchard that her client would not accept service of the summons and petition and that he needed to properly serve her client. Between October and December 2002, the opposing attorney sent Mr. Blanchard three letters reminding Mr. Blanchard that her client had yet to be served. Mr. Blanchard’s client repeatedly informed Mr. Blanchard that he wanted the case to move forward quickly and that he would not put up with stalling tactics. The client also repeatedly asked Mr. Blanchard to take action to secure personal items that remained in the opposing party’s possession. Mr. Blanchard did not serve the opposing party and did not file a motion for the return of his client’s personal property.
Around October 2002, Mr. Blanchard requested $1,500 from the client without providing a billing statement. The client, thinking the money was for the costs of a deposition of the opposing party, provided the sum to Mr. Blanchard, who deposited the payment into his general account. Mr. Blanchard attempted to schedule the deposition, but opposing counsel would not allow her client to be deposed until the summons and petition had been properly served. When the deposition was canceled, Mr. Blanchard’s client learned for the first time that the summons and petition had never been served.
After hiring a new lawyer, the client also learned that the petition for dissolution was unsigned and invalid. In January 2003, the client sent a letter to Mr. Blanchard informing him that he no longer wished to use his services and requesting a refund. Although Mr. Blanchard originally indicated that he would give the client a refund, he later informed him that he would not refund any money. The client filed a grievance with the Bar Association. Because Mr. Blanchard failed to respond, disciplinary counsel was obliged to issue a subpoenas duces tecum in order to obtain the requested information.
Mr. Blanchard’s conduct violated 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(a), requiring a lawyer’s fee to be reasonable; 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), requiring a lawyer to promptly notify a client of the receipt of his or her properties, identify and label client property on receipt and put it in a safe deposit box or other place of safekeeping as soon as possible; maintain complete records of all client property coming into the lawyer’s possession, and promptly pay or deliver to the client property in the lawyer’s possession 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; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; 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 and 5.3].
Natalea Skvir and Marsha A. Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. Kurt M. Bulmer represented Mr. Blanchard. Robert Hardy was the hearing officer. |