| Description: |
James M. Doran (WSBA No. 5104, admitted 1973), of Bellingham, was ordered to receive a reprimand on December 13, 2006, following a stipulation approved by a hearing officer. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2002 involving a conflict of interest and failure to withdraw from representation after the conflict of interest became apparent. (James M. Doran is to be distinguished from James R. Doran of Twisp.)
In early 2000, Mr. Doran was hired to represent a lender/investor in a real estate development matter. In early 2001, the developer asked another partner in Mr. Doran’s firm to take over his legal matters. Conflict-waiver letters were signed by the lawyers and clients providing that if a dispute arose, Mr. Doran’s partner would withdraw from representing the developer while Mr. Doran would continue to represent the lender/investor client. During the fall of 2001, a dispute arose between the two parties over a particular real estate development project. At a meeting in November 2001, the clients were informed that an actual conflict existed, that Mr. Doran’s client could request that Mr. Doran’s partner cease representing the developer, and that both parties could consult independent counsel. Mr. Doran’s client consented to continued representation of the developer by Mr. Doran’s partner.
Between November 2001 and April 2002, each side sought to negotiate a settlement of the dispute, and a draft settlement agreement was prepared by Mr. Doran’s partner. The draft settlement agreement included written disclosure and waiver of any conflict of interest. In February 2002, a specific disagreement arose between the parties regarding disbursement of proceeds from the sale of property in the development project, which the parties endeavored to resolve by oral agreement.
In March 2002, Mr. Doran’s partner wrote a letter to Mr. Doran asserting that Mr. Doran’s clients had reneged on the agreement about the use of sale proceeds and stating that because the “situation created an actual conflict,” an independent lawyer would be advising his client as to the relationship between the parties. In mid-April, the two parties signed a settlement agreement. Though based on earlier drafts prepared by Mr. Doran’s partner, the final document was negotiated and modified by independent counsel or co-counsel for both parties. The April settlement agreement did not contain conflict consent language.
In April and May 2002, Mr. Doran’s client was asked to sign a new conflict waiver regarding the involvement of Mr. Doran’s partner, which the client refused to do. By early April 2002 or sooner, Mr. Doran knew of his client’s concerns about his partner continuing to work for the developer, but Mr. Doran did not take steps to address it. Mr. Doran withdrew from the representation in April or May 2003 and co-counsel took over the representation.
Mr. Doran’s conduct violated RPC 1.7(a), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client and each client consents in writing after consultation and full disclosure of the material facts; RPC 1.7(b), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer’s own interests, unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents in writing after a full disclosure of material facts; RPC 1.10(a), prohibiting lawyers associated in a firm from knowingly representing a client when any of the lawyers in the firm would be prohibited from the representation if practicing alone; and former RPC 1.15(a)(1), requiring a lawyer to withdraw from a representation if the representation will result in a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.
Nancy Bickford Miller represented the Bar Association. Leland G. Ripley represented Mr. Doran. Randolph O. Petgrave III was the hearing officer. |