| Description: |
John A. Walsh (WSBA No. 20603, admitted 1991), of Bellevue, was suspended for eight months, 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 lack of communication, charging unreasonable fees, and conflicts of interest. John A. Walsh is to be distinguished from John P. Walsh of Seattle.
Matter 1. In August 2004, Mr. Walsh was hired to represent a client who had been booked into jail on suspicion of violating a no-contact order. The client’s father gave Mr. Walsh his credit card number, to which Mr. Walsh charged his $5,000 fee. Mr. Walsh did not tell the client’s father that the fee was non-refundable or that there would be additional fees should the case go to trial. Mr. Walsh never attempted to communicate with the client about his fee or billing practices. When Mr. Walsh learned that no charges had been filed and that the client would be released from jail, Mr. Walsh met with the client’s father at the courthouse and had him sign a written fee agreement providing that the $5,000 paid was a “retainer” and “non-refundable fee earned upon receipt.” In the course of the representation, Mr. Walsh answered phone calls from the client’s family, but never met with the client and spoke with him only once, which was by telephone. During that one phone call, the client requested that Mr. Walsh assist him in getting the no-contact order with his wife lifted. Mr. Walsh advised the client to stay away from his wife, but made no attempt to get the order lifted. No further work was done on the case. Mr. Walsh refused to refund any part of the $5,000 fee.
Matter 2. In July 2004, a client hired Mr. Walsh to represent her following an altercation with her husband on a U.S. military base. Mr. Walsh told the client that he would represent her for $2,000. In October 2004, the client was charged in U.S. District Court with a misdemeanor assault for scratching her husband. By the time the charge was filed, the client’s husband had been deployed to Iraq. In a written statement he made before his deployment, the client’s husband stated that the scratches he incurred were “purely accidental.” The morning of the client’s arraignment in December 2004, Mr. Walsh provided her with a written fee agreement indicating that the $2,000 he had already received was a “non-refundable fee earned upon receipt.” The terms of the fee agreement, which had not been communicated to the client prior to that day, also indicated that additional fees would be necessary should the case go to trial. The client signed the agreement before going into the courtroom. Mr. Walsh advised the client of her options. He did not include dismissal as an option. When she informed him that she wished to get the matter resolved quickly, Mr. Walsh did not explain to her the government’s speedy trial limitation or the evidentiary problems that existed in the case. The client pleaded guilty at arraignment rather than setting the case for trial. The court appointed the federal public defender to represent the client in post-conviction proceedings, and she filed a stipulated motion with the assistant United States attorney to vacate the judgment and dismiss the charges.
Matter 3. In August 2005, an individual charged with a Hit and Run Unattended hired Mr. Walsh to represent him. The client’s mother delivered to Mr. Walsh a check from her son for $900 to cover the representation. Just before leaving his office, Mr. Walsh had the client’s mother sign a fee agreement that provided for a $4,000 “non-refundable fee earned upon receipt” on a line above the words “Third Party/Guarantor.” In September 2005, while in court with Mr. Walsh’s associate, the client signed the fee agreement on a line above the word “client.” Neither the client nor his mother was given a copy of the fee agreement. Mr. Walsh never consulted with the client about obligating the client’s mother to pay his legal fee, and the client never agreed to such an arrangement. In November 2005, Mr. Walsh telephoned the client’s mother several times to demand that she pay her son’s legal fee and threatened to sue her if she did not. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Walsh signed a complaint form alleging Breach of Contract against the client’s mother and caused the complaint to be served on her, although the complaint was never filed.
Mr. Walsh’s conduct violated 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 that a lawyer’s fee be reasonable; RPC 1.5(b), requiring that when a lawyer has not regularly represented a client, or if the fee agreement is substantially different than that previously used by the parties, the basis or rate of the fee or factors involved in determining the charges for legal services and the lawyer’s billing practices shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation; RPC 1.8 (f)(1), prohibiting a lawyer from accepting compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless (1) the client consents after consultation; (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and (3) information relating to the representation of the client is protected as required by the rules.
Robert B. Gould and Scott G. Busby represented the Bar Association. Kurt M. Bulmer represented Mr. Walsh. Lee Grochmal was the hearing officer. |