| Description: |
Daphne M. Barry (WSBA No. 30175, admitted 2000), of Spokane, was suspended for three months, effective November 21, 2007, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following approval of a stipulation by the Disciplinary Board. This discipline is based on conduct involving dishonesty and non-cooperation with a Bar Association investigation.
In June 2004, Ms. Barry commenced work as a law clerk for a law firm located in Phoenix, Arizona (Firm). Ms. Barry and the Firm had an understanding that upon her admission to the Arizona Bar she would become a construction litigation attorney with the Firm. Ms. Barry took and passed the February 2005 Arizona Bar exam; however, she did not submit an application for admission to the Arizona Bar, a prerequisite for admission, until October 2005. Between May and October 2005, Ms. Barry's supervising attorney asked her when she would be admitted to the Arizona Bar and why her admission was taking so long to process. She told him that the Arizona Bar was delaying her admission because it needed more information about her previous employers, which was untrue. In November 2005, Ms. Barry told the ethics counsel for the Firm that she had not applied for admission to the Arizona Bar until October 2005. The Firm terminated Ms. Barry's employment on November 28, 2005.
The Firm filed a grievance with the Arizona Bar, who forwarded the grievance to the Washington State Bar Association (Association) because Ms. Barry had not been licensed to practice in Arizona. Between January and March 2006, the Association sent two requests for a response to the grievance using Ms. Barry's official address on record and using an alternate address. Both requests were returned as undeliverable; Ms. Barry was using her mother's and her brother's addresses in Washington while she looked for work. The Association subsequently contacted Ms. Barry by telephone and advised her that they were trying to send information to her. She provided her brother's address in Washington as a current address and received the two requests. Between April and June 2006, the Association sent to Ms. Barry letters by certified and first-class mail, and left voicemail messages, advising her that they would issue a subpoena for her deposition if she did not respond to the grievance. In June 2006, the Association received a facsimile from Ms. Barry acknowledging that she had received a copy of the grievance and the Association's request for response. Ms. Barry never responded to the grievance. The Association issued a subpoena duces tecum. The process server attempted to serve Ms. Barry five separate times at the Washington address she had provided as her physical home address, but was unable to locate and serve her.
Ms. Barry's conduct violated RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct (ELC) 5.3(f)(3), making a lawyer's failure to cooperate fully and promptly with an investigation as required by the rules grounds for discipline.
Leslie C. Allen represented the Bar Association. Ms. Barry represented herself. |