| Description: |
Richard W. Swanson (WSBA No. 4777, admitted 1972), of Marysville, was suspended for three months, effective January 16, 2007, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2004 and 2005 involving lack of diligence, failure to communicate with a client, and failure to expedite litigation. Richard W. Swanson is to be distinguished from Richard S. Swanson of Des Moines.
Mr. Swanson was hired by a client to represent her in connection with related claims against one party for slander and against another party for sexual harassment. Mr. Swanson agreed to handle both matters on a contingent-fee basis. In June 2002, Mr. Swanson commenced the lawsuit for slander. He and the lawyer for the opposing party engaged in settlement negotiations. At one point, they believed they had reached a settlement, but the client changed her mind on some of the terms and, consequently, the matter was not settled. Mr. Swanson sought to resolve the matter through arbitration. The dates of the arbitration were continued several times. After the parties failed to effectuate a settlement and the arbitration was continued, Mr. Swanson did not diligently pursue the client’s claim. In March 2004, Mr. Swanson received a notice of dismissal for want of prosecution issued by the court clerk indicating that the case would be dismissed unless action was taken within 30 days. Mr. Swanson prepared an application to continue the matter as pending so that the case would not be dismissed, but he neglected to timely file the application within the 30-day deadline. His client’s lawsuit was dismissed. Mr. Swanson was informed about the dismissal, but he took no corrective action or measures to vacate the dismissal or refile the lawsuit. He did not inform his client that her lawsuit was dismissed.
In July 2004, Mr. Swanson commenced a sexual harassment lawsuit on behalf of the same client against a business and its principal owner. Unbeknownst to Mr. Swanson, the business was owned and operated by a limited liability company (LLC). Mr. Swanson failed to diligently ascertain the correct corporate entity to sue when he filed the lawsuit. In October 2004, Mr. Swanson received a “confidential investigation report” identifying the LLC as the business’s owner, but he negligently failed to take action to add the LLC as a party to the lawsuit. After commencing the lawsuit against the business and its principal owner, Mr. Swanson failed to diligently pursue his client’s claim and did not conduct any discovery against the defendants. In December 2004, Mr. Swanson sent the client a copy of a letter from the defendant’s lawyer that included statements referencing the dismissed slander case. The client sent several letters to Mr. Swanson asking him to explain these statements, but her inquiries were disregarded. In May 2005, the client was deposed by the defendants. During the deposition, the defendants’ lawyer asked the client about the reason the slander lawsuit was dismissed. At that time, Mr. Swanson informed his client that her slander lawsuit had been “dropped” and that he would explain it to her after the deposition. Mr. Swanson later avoided his client and did not explain what had happened. After the deposition, the client repeatedly attempted to reach Mr. Swanson by telephone and letter to inquire about both the slander and the sexual harassment lawsuits. Mr. Swanson did not respond to her messages or to her letters.
In June 2005, the defendants made an offer to settle the lawsuit for $5,000, which Mr. Swanson forwarded to his client. In July, the defendants filed a summary judgment motion, arguing that (1) the owner did not have personal knowledge of the sexual harassment, and (2) the client did not sue the correct entity by suing the business and could not pierce the corporate veil to establish liability against the owner personally. Mr. Swanson did not timely and diligently respond to the motion. He obtained a continuance, but was required to pay an $850 sanction. Mr. Swanson paid the sanction personally. Mr. Swanson subsequently filed a response to the summary judgment motion, but it was inadequate because it did not include any supporting declarations.
In August 2005, the client sent Mr. Swanson a letter inquiring about settling the case and whether to make a counteroffer. Mr. Swanson received the letter but did not reply to it. In September, the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the client’s lawsuit. A few days later, the client wrote a letter to Mr. Swanson directing him to accept the $5,000 offer from the defendants. The client then contacted Mr. Swanson’s office and spoke to his legal assistant, who informed her about the dismissal of the case.
Mr. Swanson’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; 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; and RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.
Jonathan H. Burke represented the Bar Association. Mr. Swanson represented himself. Andrekita Silva was the hearing officer. |