| Description: |
Bradley R. Marshall (WSBA No. 15830, admitted 1986), of Seattle, was suspended for 18 months, effective May 10, 2007, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following an appeal. This discipline was based on his conduct between 1996 and 2000 involving conflicts of interest, failure to communicate with clients, failure to maintain complete records of client funds and to provide clients with an accounting, filing an appeal without client authority, charging excessive costs, and instructing a third party to create a deceptive invoice to conceal the nature of a fee arrangement. For additional information, see In re Discipline of Marshall, 160 Wn.2d 317, 157 P.3d 859 (2007).
Commencing in 1996, Mr. Marshall represented a number of longshoreman clients in a federal district court action alleging racial discrimination against several local unions. During the course of and following the representation, Mr. Marshall engaged in the following conduct that established grounds for discipline:
• Mr. Marshall did not explain to each of the clients the implications of, or the advantages and risks involved in, common representation, and he did not obtain written consent from the clients to multiple representation;
• Mr. Marshall filed an appeal of the dismissal of one of the defendants without the knowledge or authorization of several of his clients, and following commencement of the appeal he did not provide the clients with a meaningful explanation of the facts of the appeal and its consequences for each of them;
• Mr. Marshall instructed a nonlawyer who had initially referred the case to his office, and to whom the clients owed 10 percent of the final settlement proceeds as a consultant’s fee, to create an hourly invoice in an attempt to conceal the appearance of fee-sharing [Note that because the nonlawyer had a pre-existing agreement with the clients to pay a 10 percent fee, the Supreme Court concluded that Mr. Marshall did not split a fee in violation of RPC 5.4(a)];
• Mr. Marshall improperly charged contract attorney fees as costs in violation of the written fee agreement and treated a refund of a $41,000 cost advance as an expense chargeable to the client; and
• Mr. Marshall did not maintain complete records of the receipt and disbursal of settlement proceeds or provide an appropriate accounting to the client regarding the distribution of the funds.
Mr. Marshall violated RPC 1.2(a), requiring a lawyer to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and to consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued; former RPC 1.2(f), prohibiting a lawyer from willfully purporting to act as a lawyer for any person without the authority of that person; 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 1.7(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 full disclosure of the material facts; former RPC 1.14(b)(3), requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to his or her client regarding them; former RPC 1.14(b)(4), requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or deliver to the client the funds, securities, or other property in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive; and RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Special Disciplinary Counsel Carolyn Cairns represented the Bar Association at the hearing. Scott G. Busby represented the Bar Association on appeal. Kurt M. Bulmer represented Mr. Marshall at the hearing. Philip A. Talmadge represented Mr. Marshall on appeal. Robert M. Scales was the hearing officer. |