| Description: |
Dale L. Raugust (WSBA No. 6904, admitted 1976), of Spokane Valley, was disbarred, effective July 18, 2007, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following approval of a stipulation by the Disciplinary Board. This discipline was based on conduct involving false claims made during an investigation in order to avoid disciplinary action.
In January 2004, Mr. Raugust agreed to prepare, file, and serve a response to a petition for dissolution that had been served on his client. It was understood that the response would be filed as a pro se pleading and that Mr. Raugust would not appear in the proceeding on the client’s behalf. Mr. Raugust prepared a response, but the client did not come to Mr. Raugust’s office to sign the response. Thus, the response was not timely filed and served. In February, an order of default was entered.
In October 2005, the client filed a grievance alleging that Mr. Raugust failed to inform him that he needed to come to his office to sign the response to the petition. In Mr. Raugust’s written response to the grievance, he claimed that after preparing the response to the petition for dissolution, he instructed his assistant to telephone the client on a daily basis to notify him that he needed to come to the office to sign the response. He also included with his response a copy of a letter dated February 9, 2004, that he claimed to have sent to the client. In fact, Mr. Raugust created the letter in October 2005.
In January 2006, Disciplinary Counsel sent a request to Mr. Raugust for (1) the address and telephone number of his assistant; (2) a detailed description of the procedures used in attempting to contact the client; and (3) a copy of Mr. Raugust’s client file. In a written response in February, Mr. Raugust described certain office procedures that he claimed to have had in place at the time he prepared the client’s response to the petition for dissolution and repeated the claim that he had sent a letter to the client. Mr. Raugust provided a copy of what he claimed was his entire client file. That file contained another copy of the letter dated February 9, 2004, that Mr. Raugust claimed to have sent to the client. In February 2006, the Bar Association investigator interviewed Mr. Raugust at his office. When asked about office procedures, Mr. Raugust showed the investigator an “Employee Handbook of Office Procedures” and directed her attention to Section 2.D under the heading “Receptionist’s Job Duties.” This section described a procedure for contacting clients who need to sign documents. Mr. Raugust told the investigator that this section had been in his “Employee Handbook of Office Procedures” since February 2001, when in fact it was created by Mr. Raugust a few days before the interview and in anticipation of that interview.
Mr. Raugust’s conduct violated RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer from violating a duty or sanction imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct in connection with a disciplinary matter.
Scott G. Busby represented the Bar Association. Mr. Raugust represented himself. |