| Description: |
Mark A. Panitch (WSBA No. 12393, admitted 1982), of Seattle, was disbarred, effective February 12, 2007, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct involving lack of diligence, lack of communication, failure to expedite litigation, charging an unreasonable amount for expenses, false statements, dishonesty, trust account irregularities, failure to take reasonably practicable steps to protect client interests upon termination of representation, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
Between 2000 and 2004, in three matters, Mr. Panitch engaged in the following conduct that established grounds for discipline:
• Charging a client unreasonable and unnecessary travel expenses;
• Failing to respond to client requests for information;
• Failing to inform a client that a summary judgment motion had been filed and noted for hearing, failing to file a response to a motion for summary judgment, failing to inform a client about a scheduled summary judgment hearing, and failing to inform a client that he did not intend to respond to a summary judgment motion or to be present at a summary judgment hearing;
• In two instances, failing to inform a client that the client’s case had been dismissed, and failing to take remedial action following the dismissal;
• Failing to inform a client that a judgment for attorney fees had been entered against the client;
• Falsely stating to opposing counsel that he had not received a summary judgment motion;
• Providing false information to a client about the status of her case;
• Vacating his office without providing forwarding information to the client, the court, or opposing counsel;
• Failing to respond to inquiries from the court concerning his participation in a case;
• Failing to comply with a court’s order to show cause;
• Failing to render an appropriate accounting of a $3,000 cost advance he had received from a client, failing to maintain complete records of the advance, and failing to return the unused portion of the advance upon termination of the representation;
• Failing to safeguard and return property and papers that clients had placed in his possession;
• Failing to provide the client file to a client’s new lawyer and failing to cooperate with the new lawyer in seeking to vacate an order of dismissal; and
• Failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigations and falsely testifying at a disciplinary deposition.
Mr. Panitch’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4(a), requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; RPC 1.5(a), requiring a lawyer’s fee to be reasonable; former RPC 1.14(b)(2), requiring a lawyer to identify and label securities and properties of a client promptly upon receipt and place them in a safe deposit box or other place of safekeeping as soon as practicable; 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 as requested by the client the funds, securities, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive; former RPC 1.15(d), requiring a lawyer to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; RPC 4.1(a), prohibiting a lawyer, in the course of representing a client, from making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; 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 (here, ELC 5.3(e) and 5.5(c)), in connection with a disciplinary matter.
Scott G. Busby represented the Bar Association. Mr. Panitch represented himself. Stephen D. Funderburk was the hearing officer. |