| Description: |
Gail Schwartz (WSBA No. 28994, admitted 1999), of Spokane, was suspended for six months by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on her conduct involving lack of competence, lack of diligence, failure to expedite litigation, failure to communicate with a client, and failure to abide by a client’s decisions.
In November 2000, a client hired Ms. Schwartz to represent her in a tort matter that had arisen in October or November 1999 when a pitbull terrier escaped from its owner’s yard, ran into the client’s yard, and attacked and injured the client’s dog. While trying to separate the dogs, the client fell and sustained physical injury. The attack occurred within the city limits of Almira, Washington, where a city ordinance prohibited pitbull terriers within the city limits. The client wished to file an action against the dog’s owner and to pursue an action against the city of Almira for failure to enforce the ordinance. The statute of limitations for the client’s tort claim against the city expired three years from the date of her injury (October or November 2002). In January 2000, the client filed a “citizen complaint” with the city of Almira regarding the pitbull attack.
Ms. Schwartz agreed to represent the client and bring an action against the city of Almira, its insurance carrier, and the pitbull’s owner. The client informed Ms. Schwartz that she specifically wanted the matter filed in Spokane County because she felt that she would not receive a fair hearing in Lincoln County. Ms. Schwartz never informed the client that, owing to jurisdictional issues, the matter could not be filed in Spokane County. In October 2001, Ms. Schwartz filed a lawsuit against the pitbull’s owner and the City of Almira in Lincoln County. Ms. Schwartz met with the client twice to discuss the case, but subsequently did nothing more on the matter. The client attempted to contact Ms. Schwartz several times without success.
In early 2002, the client discussed the case with another lawyer. The lawyer informed Ms. Schwartz that the claim was probably deficient and that Ms. Schwartz should dismiss the lawsuit and refile it in an adjoining county in the proper form. The lawyer also recommended that Ms. Schwartz obtain the client’s medical records and communicate more with the client. Ms. Schwartz assured the lawyer that she planned to refile the matter in Spokane County and that she would contact the client and obtain the medical records promptly.
In September 2002, the lawyer contacted Ms. Schwartz and found she had still not done anything on the client’s matter. After referring Ms. Schwartz to the appropriate court rule, the lawyer told Ms. Schwartz that she still thought there was time to take a voluntary nonsuit and refile the claim. She also told Ms. Schwartz that if she wanted to terminate representation, she should file the claim first to protect the client’s rights. In November 2002, Ms. Schwartz dismissed the Lincoln County action with the intent of refiling it in Spokane County, but she never refiled the lawsuit.
Ms. Schwartz’s conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation; RPC 1.2(a), requiring a lawyer to abide by a client’s directives 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; and RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.
Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Ms. Schwartz did not appear either in person or through counsel. Frederic G. Fancher was the hearing officer. |