| Description: |
Roger D. Ost Jr. (WSBA No. 22141, admitted 1992), of Seattle, was disbarred, effective December 7, 2007, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This discipline was based on conduct involving failure to act with reasonable diligence; lack of communication; withholding client funds and property; failure to withdraw from representation; failure to expedite litigation; failure to comply with a discovery request; conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
In August 2002, a client hired Mr. Ost to represent her in her marriage dissolution. The client paid Mr. Ost an advanced attorney’s fee of $2,000 and provided him with documents supporting her claim that she invested money in her husband’s home. Mr. Ost agreed to represent the client in the dissolution and also suggested that he draft estate-planning documents for her. The documents that Mr. Ost drafted prematurely contained the client’s maiden name, which prevented her from getting them notarized.
In September 2002, the client was served with a petition for dissolution of marriage. Although the client immediately gave the petition to Mr. Ost, he did not file a written notice of appearance until February 2003. Throughout 2002 and 2003, the client telephoned and mailed letters to Mr. Ost asking for information about her case. Mr. Ost did not return her telephone calls or answer her letters. The attorney representing the client’s husband filed a default motion, serving it on Mr. Ost on March 17, 2003. Mr. Ost filed an answer to the petition on March 27, 2003, but did not give a copy of the answer to his client or communicate with her about it. In April, the husband’s attorney served Mr. Ost with interrogatories, to which Mr. Ost did not respond or request an extension for a response. In June, Mr. Ost told the client that he had filed for and received a court date, which was false. The client discharged Mr. Ost and demanded an accounting of his time, a refund of any unearned fees, and the return of the documents she gave to him. Mr. Ost did not respond to the client and did not immediately withdraw from the representation.
Through the efforts of the client and her husband’s lawyer, the decree dissolving the marriage was filed in August 2003. As a result of Mr. Ost’s lack of action in the case, the client was unable to prove her total claim that she had invested money into her husband’s home and the husband’s legal fees were higher. Mr. Ost filed a notice of withdrawal in September 2003. The client filed a grievance against Mr. Ost in May 2003.
In 2005, Mr. Ost misrepresented to Bar Association disciplinary counsel that he had paid restitution to the client, when in fact he had not paid restitution. He sent to disciplinary counsel a copy of a cashier’s check as proof, which he later admitted to having altered in order to make it appear that he had paid restitution to the client. His failure to promptly pay restitution to the client caused the client serious injury.
Mr. Ost’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; former 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; former RPC 1.14(b)(4), requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by a client the funds, securities, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive; former RPC 1.15(a)(3), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the lawyer is discharged; former RPC 1.15(d), requiring a lawyer to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as 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 3.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer, in a pretrial procedure, from failing to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
M. Craig Bray represented the Bar Association. Kurt M. Bulmer represented Mr. Ost. Charles K. Wiggins was the hearing officer. |