| Description: |
Theodore R. Parry (WSBA No. 15203, admitted 1985), of Seattle, was suspended for one year, effective April 5, 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 several matters involving lack of diligence, failure to communicate with clients, conflict of interest, trust-account irregularities, fee improprieties, failure to supervise a nonlawyer employee, and use of a false firm name.
Between 2001 and 2005, Mr. Parry engaged in the following conduct that established grounds for discipline:
• For eight months, representing on all of his pleading paper, letterhead, business cards, and e-mail communications that he was practicing as a member of a law firm when no such firm existed.
• In two personal-injury matters, collecting fees on the same day settlement checks were deposited in the firm’s trust account and before the settlement checks had cleared the banking system, thereby using funds of other clients until the settlement checks cleared the banking process.
• Paying his firm a fee based on one-third of the gross recovery when the fee agreement provided for one-third of the net recovery and without reviewing the proposed fee disbursement with this client.
• Drafting a fee agreement that did not clearly indicate the manner in which the contingent fee was to be calculated.
• Withdrawing trust-account funds that he was not entitled to collect, and failing to return overpayments to the trust account when the overpayments were brought to his attention.
• Failing to promptly pursue resolution of a client’s medical-provider claim in a personal-injury matter.
• In two personal-injury matters, using fee agreements giving him a power of attorney to execute settlement checks and releases on behalf of the clients without first obtaining the clients’ consent in writing after full disclosure.
• Failing to return to the trust account funds collected for cost reimbursement when the client disputed entitlement to those funds.
• Failing to advise a client whether the claims he was pursuing were the property of the client’s bankruptcy estate.
• Failing to supervise his clerk so that the medical records necessary to pursue a client’s claim were obtained in a timely matter.
Mr. Parry’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; 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; 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 the rate of the fee or factors involved in determining the charges for legal services, preferably in writing; former RPC 1.5(c)(1), requiring a contingent-fee agreement to be in writing and state the method by which the fee is to be determined; former 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 consultation and a full disclosure of the material facts; former RPC 1.14(a), requiring that all funds of a client paid to a lawyer be deposited into an identifiable interest-bearing trust account and that no funds belonging to the lawyer be deposited therein; RPC 5.3, requiring a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; former RPC 7.1(a), prohibiting a lawyer from making a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services, including a communication that contains a material misrepresentation of fact; RPC 7.5(a), prohibiting a lawyer from using a firm name, letterhead, or other professional designation that violates RPC 7.1(a); and RPC 7.5(d), providing that lawyers may state or imply that they practice in a partnership or other organization only when that is the fact.
Randy V. Beitel represented the Bar Association. Thomas A. Campbell represented Mr. Parry. |