| Description: |
Courtenay D. Babcock (WSBA No. 22674, admitted 1993), of Blaine, was disbarred, effective April 7, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on conduct in five client matters involving failure to provide competent representation, lack of diligence, failure to communicate, charging unreasonable fees, failure to protect clients’ interests, engaging in dishonest conduct, engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, and violating a duty imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct.
Between April 2000 and August 2006, Mr. Babcock engaged in the following conduct:
• Abandoning his practice and failing to diligently represent and communicate with clients in four separate matters;
• Failing to complete and process an application to change a client’s status in an immigration matter;
• Failing to provide to one client a written fee agreement or an explanation of fees or an accounting of time Mr. Babcock spent on the client’s case, and failing to render an accounting to another client of the funds held in Mr. Babcock’s trust account;
• Failing to perform any legal services on behalf of a client in one matter and then failing to refund her deposit, and failing to perform any legal services on behalf of a second client in another matter while obtaining payment of approximately 20 percent (or $11,100) of her settlement proceeds without confirming the agreement in writing;
• Retaining an entire $2,500 advance fee deposit while having performed only a single minor legal service on behalf of the client, and then failing to refund the unearned portion of the advance fee deposit, thereby charging an unreasonable fee for the minor legal service performed;
• Withdrawing a client’s advance fee deposit from his trust account without the client’s knowledge, consent, or authorization, and using it for his own purposes;
• Failing to respond to a client’s requests and to communicate with a client about the refund of his $3,000 advance fee deposit, and failing to promptly refund that advance fee deposit;
• Misrepresenting to the Association the status of his practice and his relationship with a client; and
• Failing to cooperate with the Bar Association’s investigation in three matters and misrepresenting to the Bar Association in another matter that a client was not his client and that he was not receiving a share of that client’s settlement proceeds.
Mr. Babcock’s conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4, requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, and explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; RPC 1.5(a), requiring a lawyer’s fee to 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 lawyer communicates to the client within a reasonable time the basis or rate of the fee or the factors involved in determining the charges, preferably in writing; 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; RPC 1.5(e), allowing a division of fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm to be made only if the division is between the lawyer and a duly authorized lawyer referral service, or the division is in proportion to the services provided by each lawyer, or by written agreement with the client, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation, the client is advised of and does not object to the participation of all the lawyers involved, and the total fee is reasonable; 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 in connection with a disciplinary matter.
Kathleen A.T. Dassel represented the Bar Association. Mr. Babcock did not appear either in person or through counsel. Joseph D. Bowen was the hearing officer.
|