| Description: |
Satwant Singh Pandher (WSBA No. 17269, admitted 1987), of Everett, was disbarred, effective February 6, 2007, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct between 1998 and 2005 in a number of matters involving multiple acts of misconduct.
Mr. Pandher’s conduct establishing grounds for discipline included the following:
• Failing to diligently pursue and protect client interests in three immigration matters and one boundary dispute matter.
• Failing to communicate with clients, making misrepresentations to clients about the status of their cases, failing to respond to client requests for information, and instructing a client not to contact him or the tribunal in order to conceal his own nonfeasance.
• Consulting with an individual about a dissolution matter and then representing the adverse party in the same proceeding without obtaining written consent after a full disclosure of material facts.
• Communicating with a party represented by counsel about subject matter of the representation.
• Continuing to represent a client in an immigration matter despite an inability to communicate with the client owing to a language barrier.
• Misrepresenting facts to an adverse party.
• Failing to communicate to a client the basis, rate, and factors involved in determining the fee charged, charging an unreasonable fee, and charging a fee for which no services were performed.
• Failing to give a client reasonable notice that he was terminating the representation and failing to refund the unearned portion of the fee.
Mr. Pandher’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 1.5(a), requiring a lawyer’s fee to be reasonable; RPC 1.5(b), requiring a lawyer, when the lawyer has not regularly represented the client or if the fee agreement is substantially different than that previously used by the parties, to communicate to the client the basis or rate of the fee or factors involved in determining the charges for the legal services; RPC 1.9(a), prohibiting a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter from representing another client in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation and a full disclosure of the material facts; former RPC 1.15(d), requiring a lawyer to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned; RPC 3.1, prohibiting a lawyer from bringing or defending a proceeding, or asserting or controverting an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous; RPC 4.1, prohibiting a lawyer, in the course of representing a client, from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; RPC 4.2, prohibiting a lawyer, in representing a client, from communicating about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter; and RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Kathleen A.T. Dassel represented the Bar Association. Mr. Pandher did not appear either in person or through counsel. Moses F. Garcia was the hearing officer. |