| Description: |
James B. Holcomb (WSBA No. 1695, admitted 1967), of Bainbridge Island, was suspended for six months, effective December 20, 2007, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following an appeal. This discipline was based on conduct involving conflicts of interest.
In 1998, Mr. Holcomb agreed to represent a client for an hourly fee to review files and make recommendations regarding an equal employment opportunity action that the client had filed pro se. Mr. Holcomb and the client later signed a second fee agreement in which Mr. Holcomb agreed to represent the client in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) hearing. When the EEOC denied the client’s claim and the client decided to appeal to the U.S. District Court, the client and Mr. Holcomb agreed to a contingent fee arrangement and signed a third agreement. In 2003, after the District Court dismissed the client’s appeal, Mr. Holcomb and the client entered into a fourth fee agreement in which Mr. Holcomb agreed to file a notice of appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and seek mediation of the client’s claim. Sometime in early March 2003, the client and Mr. Holcomb reached an impasse regarding the representation in the appeal, and Mr. Holcomb withdrew.
From December 1999 through March 2001, Mr. Holcomb borrowed from the client a total of $52,300 in 24 individual loans. The amount of each individual loan ranged from $750 to $3,500. Most of the loans were outstanding for no more than two weeks; the last loan was outstanding for over a year. Mr. Holcomb eventually repaid all of the loans. The loans were not subject to a written loan agreement, payment of interest, penalties or fees, or a schedule for repayment of the principal. Mr. Holcomb did not provide security for the loans, did not advise the client that his personal interests might conflict with the client’s interests, did not obtain a written waiver of a conflict of interest, did not provide the client with information about his current financial condition, and did not advise the client that he could seek independent counsel about the suitability of his loan request. Eleven of the loans were made by cashier’s check to Mr. Holcomb and contained references to the client; 13 of the loans were made by personal check from an account in the name of the client and his wife’s trust and were signed by either the client or his wife. Mr. Holcomb repaid the loans by personal checks made payable to the client.
Mr. Holcomb’s conduct violated former 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 own interests unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents in writing after consultation and a full disclosure of the material facts; and former RPC 1.8(a), prohibiting a lawyer from entering into a business transaction with a client unless the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner which can be reasonably understood by the client, the client is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel in the transaction, and the client consents thereto.
M. Craig Bray represented the Bar Association. Brett A. Purtzer represented Mr. Holcomb. David K. Hiscock was the hearing officer. |