| Description: |
Carlos Valero (WSBA No. 29192, admitted 1999), of Spokane, was disbarred, effective April 6, 2006, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on Mr. Valero’s conduct in 2003 and 2004 in a number of matters involving multiple acts of misconduct.
It is pertinent to several of the matters that Mr. Valero was previously suspended from the practice of law by order of the Supreme Court dated October 22, 2003, effective December 1, 2003.
Matter 1: Between May and September 2003, Mr. Valero, who was not licensed to practice law in Idaho, met with a client on seven different occasions regarding a family law action filed in Idaho, accepted a $100 fee from the client, and appeared on the client’s behalf in Idaho court. Mr. Valero told the Idaho court that he would be filing a notice of appearance, a pro hac vice application, and the necessary pretrial documents by mid-November 2003, all of which he failed to do. Mediation was set for December 1, 2003, and trial was set for December 8, 2003. Mr. Valero failed to meet any of the pretrial deadlines. He subsequently advised the mediator that he would file a pro hac vice motion, associate with Idaho counsel, and represent his client through the mediation. Mr. Valero did not advise the court, the mediator, or opposing counsel about his imminent suspension. After December 1, 2003, Mr. Valero did not cease practicing law. On December 2, Mr. Valero faxed a number of trial documents to opposing counsel. By letter on his law office letterhead, Mr. Valero subsequently advised opposing counsel that he would no longer be representing his client.
Matter 2: In a family law action pending in late 2004, Mr. Valero did not notify the opposing lawyer, his client, or the court of his imminent suspension. Mr. Valero did not file a notice of withdrawal with the court after he was suspended. Following the commencement of his suspension, Mr. Valero had several telephone conversations with his client, during which they substantively discussed the case. Mr. Valero told the client that he was very busy and that another lawyer had agreed to assist him on the case. Until she received a fee agreement from the new lawyer and telephoned the new lawyer’s office in early 2004, the client had no knowledge that Mr. Valero was suspended.
Matter 3: In January 2003, Mr. Valero was hired by clients to pursue a breach-of-contract claim against a Spokane business. The clients signed a fee agreement and paid Mr. Valero $10,000, characterized in the fee agreement as a “non[-]refundable advance flat fee retainer.” The clients believed the payment to be an advance fee that would be refunded if Mr. Valero did not do the work for them. Mr. Valero deposited the money into his own account. During the representation, Mr. Valero failed to return several phone calls from the clients and did not appear for scheduled meetings. At one point, he told the clients that he hired a detective, that the detective had discovered that the defendants owned 13 pieces of real property, that he was working on placing liens on these properties, and that he had served the defendants with a notice to appear in court. Mr. Valero had done none of these things. After receiving a letter from the clients in which they requested an itemized bill, copies of the liens, and the return of some original documents, Mr. Valero denied having ever told the clients that a detective had discovered property owned by the defendants. In August 2003, the clients went to Mr. Valero’s office to demand the return of their original documents and property, some of which he failed to return. Subsequently, the clients again demanded an itemized billing statement. As Mr. Valero did not keep track of the time he had spent on their legal matter, he recreated a billing statement showing that he had spent $9,292.50 of attorney time on their case, and he sent the bill to the clients. He also sent them a copy of a proposed complaint, which he asked the clients to sign and return to him. The clients refused to sign the complaint, did not authorize the complaint to be filed, and did not communicate further with Mr. Valero.
In November 2003, Mr. Valero filed the complaint in superior court. The complaint named a number of individuals as defendants, along with a business and several insurance and bonding companies. None of the individual defendants were served, and owing to lack of specificity in naming the business-entity defendant, the incorrect bonding company was served. On or after December 1, 2003, a claims representative contacted Mr. Valero and advised him that they had had no business dealings with the named plaintiffs and were therefore wrongfully served. Mr. Valero responded that he would investigate the matter, but took no further steps to ensure that the incorrectly named party was dismissed from the action. He later told the representative that another lawyer was representing his clients, which was untrue. Mr. Valero did not inform the representative, his clients, any opposing party or counsel, or the court that he was suspended from the practice of law. In December 2003, a lawyer wrote a letter to Mr. Valero asking him to dismiss the lawsuit against the incorrectly named party. Mr. Valero did not respond or take any action after receiving the letter, nor did he inform the lawyer that he was suspended. In January 2004, Mr. Valero told the lawyer that he would agree to dismiss the lawsuit after consulting with his clients, but he took no further action. The lawyer then informed Mr. Valero that if the suit was not voluntarily dismissed, he would commence summary judgment proceedings and seek attorney fees. In a subsequent telephone conversation, Mr. Valero told the lawyer that he would dismiss the lawsuit, but that he was withdrawing from the case and another lawyer would be taking over. He did not provide a reason for withdrawal or identify the new lawyer.
A summary judgment motion was filed against Mr. Valero’s clients and served on Mr. Valero, as he was still the clients’ attorney of record. Mr. Valero did not tell the clients about the motion. Neither Mr. Valero, nor anyone else on behalf of Mr. Valero’s clients, responded to the motion or appeared at the hearing. After determining that Mr. Valero was suspended, the judge rescheduled the hearing. Mr. Valero was sent a notice indicating that the motion had been rescheduled. Mr. Valero did not tell the clients that the motion had been rescheduled. Neither Mr. Valero, nor anyone else on behalf of Mr. Valero’s clients, responded or appeared at the rescheduled hearing, and the judge dismissed the complaint with prejudice, awarding the moving party attorney’s fees and costs. In June 2004, opposing counsel began garnishment proceedings against the clients’ bank account for a total of $955.00. The clients subsequently paid the judgment against them.
Matter 4: In August 2004, Mr. Valero agreed to represent a client in a criminal matter for a $2,000 flat fee. Mr. Valero did not tell the client that he was suspended from the practice of law. After meeting with the client several times and offering legal advice about the case, Mr. Valero accepted a $200 payment towards the flat fee. When the client requested that Mr. Valero appear with him at an upcoming court hearing, Mr. Valero explained that another lawyer would be more successful before the assigned judge and would appear at the hearing. While waiting in the courtroom for his lawyer to appear, the client heard the court commissioner tell another defendant that Mr. Valero was suspended from the practice of law. Neither Mr. Valero, nor the other lawyer Mr. Valero had named, arrived in the courtroom by the time the client’s case was called. The client’s subsequent attempts to contact Mr. Valero were unsuccessful.
Matter 5: In July 2004, while Mr. Valero was suspended from the practice of law, a client hired him to handle both a criminal and a child custody matter. The client paid to Mr. Valero at least $800 towards an agreed-upon $1,500 flat fee. In late July or early August 2004, Mr. Valero prepared and signed a variety of pleadings in the case, which had previously been commenced in superior court. Mr. Valero drove the client and his mother to the courthouse to attend the client’s dependency hearing. During the drive, Mr. Valero and the client substantively discussed both of the client’s cases. While at the courthouse, Mr. Valero identified himself as the client’s lawyer to a Child Protective Services representative, the appointed GAL, his client’s court-appointed lawyer, and the assigned assistant attorney general. Mr. Valero engaged each of these persons in conversation about his client’s case and proposed changes to the parenting plan. He did not tell any of these persons, or his client, that he was suspended from the practice of law. At the courthouse, Mr. Valero accompanied his client and client’s mother to the clerk’s office to file the pleadings he had prepared. Prior to filing the pleadings, Mr. Valero used white-out to cover his signature and directed his client to sign the documents in the area over which he had used white-out.
The client’s pretrial hearing on the criminal charges was set for September 2004. Mr. Valero told his client that he would appear with him at the hearing and advised him to plead not guilty to the charges. On the day of the hearing, Mr. Valero did not meet with his client at the courthouse at the appointed time. When Mr. Valero’s client told the court the name of his lawyer, the presiding judge informed the client that Mr. Valero was suspended from practicing law and could not represent him. In October or November 2004, Mr. Valero contacted his client and asked him to come to his house, where he asked him to sign a declaration. The declaration stated that the client had been confused when he told the court that he had hired Mr. Valero to represent him on his criminal case. The client refused to sign the declaration because it was false.
Matter 6: Between January and August 2004, the Bar Association directed Mr. Valero to respond to the grievances filed against him in Matters 1, 2, and 3. Because Mr. Valero failed to respond, disciplinary counsel was obliged to issue subpoenas duces tecum in order to obtain the responses.
Mr. Valero’s conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client; RPC 1.2, requiring a lawyer to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation; 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, to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and to 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 be deposited into an interest-bearing trust account; 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(a)(1), requiring a lawyer to withdraw from representing a client if the representation will result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; RPC 1.15(d), requiring a lawyer upon termination of representation to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests; RPC 5.5(a), prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; RPC 5.5(e), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in the practice of law while on inactive status, or while suspended from the practice of law for any cause; RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting a lawyer from committing a criminal act (here, theft in the second degree, witness tampering, and attempting to suborn perjury) 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(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; 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; RPC 8.4(j), prohibiting a lawyer from willfully disobeying or violating a court order directing him or her to do or cease doing an act which he or she ought in good faith to do or forbear; RPC 8.4(k), prohibiting a lawyer from violating his or her oath as an attorney, 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), 14.1, and 14.2).
Leslie C. Allen represented the Bar Association. Mr. Valero represented himself. Dennis W. Morgan was the hearing officer. |