| Description: |
John L. Erickson (WSBA No. 4909, admitted 1973), of Bellingham, was suspended for 60 days, effective May 15, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following approval of a stipulation. This discipline was based on conduct involving conflicts of interest; practicing law while suspended; conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and violation of a duty in connection with a disciplinary matter.
Matter No. 1: In June 2004, Mr. Erickson was hired by a client (Mr. B) to represent him in a marital dissolution proceeding against the client’s wife (Mrs. B). The dissolution did not proceed because Mr. and Mrs. B reconciled. In August 2005, Mrs. B’s mother filed for custody of Mr. and Mrs. B’s two children. Mr. Erickson jointly represented both Mr. and Mrs. B in the child-custody matter against Mrs. B’s mother. During that time, Mr. Erickson met with Mr. and Mrs. B jointly and was provided with information from Mrs. B that is covered by the attorney-client privilege and would constitute confidences or secrets.
In May 2006, Mr. and Mrs. B separated again and their relationship became strained and adversarial. After the separation, Mr. Erickson represented Mr. B in the pending dissolution and child-custody matters. Mr. B’s interests in the matters were materially adverse to those of Mrs. B. Mr. Erickson failed to seek or obtain informed consent confirmed in writing from Mrs. B to represent Mr. B. In June 2006, Mrs. B filed a grievance with the Association alleging that Mr. Erickson failed to avoid a conflict of interest by continuing to represent Mr. B in the pending matters. The Association sent Mr. Erickson a copy of the grievance and a letter requesting him to respond to the grievance. Mr. Erickson did not respond, and continued to represent Mr. B. In July 2006, the Bar Association sent Mr. Erickson a second letter requesting him to provide a written response to the grievance. Mr. Erickson did not respond. Disciplinary counsel sent a third letter on February 7, 2007, requesting a response by February 26, 2007. Mr. Erickson received the letter, but did not respond to it. In March 2007, Mrs. B filed a motion to disqualify Mr. Erickson from representing Mr. B based on the conflict of interest. Mr. Erickson received the motion, but did not withdraw from the representation. He believed that Mrs. B would not be harmed by any potential conflict of interest because Mr. B was willing to accept her demands regarding the division of property. At the hearing on the motion to disqualify, Mrs. B told the court that Mr. Erickson could continue to represent her husband if he promptly completed the dissolution. Consequently, the court did not disqualify Mr. Erickson from the representation. Mr. Erickson never completed the dissolution. In March 2007, Mr. Erickson was served with a subpoena for deposition and subpoena duces tecum issued by the Association scheduling his deposition for April 2007. Mr. Erickson still did not respond to the grievance but did appear for his deposition.
Matter No. 2: Mr. Erickson failed to timely pay his annual 2007 Association license fees. In March 2007, Mr. Erickson received a pre-suspension notice by certified mail from the Association. In April 2007, the Association left a voicemail message at Mr. Erickson’s office warning him that he would be suspended if he failed to pay his license fees. Mr. Erickson did not return the call. In June 2007, additional notices of suspension were sent to Mr. Erickson by certified mail, but that mail was returned unclaimed. Mr. Erickson was suspended for nonpayment of license fees on June 13, 2007, and was notified by telephone of his suspension that same day. After receiving that call, Mr. Erickson contacted a staff person at the Association (Ms. X) regarding getting reinstated. He filled out and submitted an application for change of membership, on which he left several answers blank. The application, mailed to the Association with a check to cover the outstanding fees, inaccurately reflected that Mr. Erickson had not had any direct or continuing active legal experience since leaving active status. Believing he would be immediately reinstated, Mr. Erickson continued to practice law.
On June 27, 2007, Ms. X left Mr. Erickson a voicemail, and sent him an e-mail, asking him to call her because he did not complete the application. Mr. Erickson did not return the call and did not retrieve the e-mail until a later date. On July 3, 2007, Ms. X sent Mr. Erickson a letter asking him to complete the application so that she could proceed with his status change. When Mr. Erickson received Ms. X’s letter, he knew he had not yet been readmitted to practice law. On July 24, 2007, Mr. Erickson e-mailed responses to the inquiries made by Ms. X inaccurately stating “I have not engaged in the practice of law between the time I was suspended and paid my dues.” In fact, Mr. Erickson did practice law after his June 13, 2007, suspension. On July 31, 2007, the Association reinstated Mr. Erickson’s license to practice law. In August 2007, the Association opened a grievance against Mr. Erickson for practicing law while under suspension and sent him a letter requesting a response to the grievance within two weeks. Mr. Erickson received the letter but did not respond to it. In September 2007, the Association sent letters to Mr. Erickson by certified mail (which were returned unclaimed) and by regular mail, along with copies of the earlier letters. Mr. Erickson received the letter sent by regular mail, but knowingly failed to timely respond to it. In October 2007, Mr. Erickson was personally served with a second subpoena for deposition and subpoena duces tecum for failing to respond to the grievance; he attended the second deposition at the offices of the Association.
Mr. Erickson’s conduct violated RPC 1.9(a), prohibiting a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter from thereafter representing another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents in writing after consultation and a full disclosure of the materials facts [former RPC 5.5(a), prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction where the doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction]; current RPC 5.8(a), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in the practice of law while on inactive status, or while suspended from the practice of law for any cause; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; 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 [here, ELC 1.5].
Jonathan H. Burke represented the Bar Association. Mr. Erickson represented himself. |