| Description: |
Scott A. Everard (WSBA No. 20218, admitted 1990), of Spokane, has been disbarred by order of the Supreme Court effective December 12, 2000, following a default hearing. The discipline is based upon his failure to diligently represent and adequately communicate with three clients, failure to properly handle client funds, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary counsel’s reasonable requests for information from 1994 through 1997.
Matter 1: Mr. Everard agreed to represent a client injured in a 1992 automobile accident. In spring 1994, Mr. Everard made a demand for underinsured motorist coverage. In August 1994, Mr. Everard obtained a $10,000 PIP payment for his client. He sent this check to the client in February 1995. The claim was never resolved because the insurance adjuster was not able to contact Mr. Everard. The adjuster tried to contact Mr. Everard several times by letter and telephone between November 1994 and August 1996 but received no response. The client also tried to contact Mr. Everard between February 1995 and April 1996 but received no response.
In June 1994, the client asked Mr. Everard to pursue a dental malpractice claim. The dentist had left a paper tooth in the client’s mouth during a root canal, causing swelling and pain. The client believed that Mr. Everard had agreed to pursue this claim; however, Mr. Everard took no action on this claim. After February 1995, the client was not able to contact Mr. Everard.
On June 8, 1995, the client filed a grievance against Mr. Everard, asking the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to assist him in contacting Mr. Everard. Disciplinary counsel wrote to Mr. Everard in July, August and September 1995, but received no response. On April 16, 1996, the client terminated Mr. Everard’s services and requested that he make a copy of the client’s file available on April 19. On that date, the client went to Mr. Everard’s office and found a note taped to the door stating that Mr. Everard did not have time to make copies of the client’s file and that he could have his original pictures back if he paid for them in advance. The client then asked the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to assist him in getting his file. Despite several attempts by the client and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Mr. Everard did not release the client’s file until March 1997.
Matter 2: Mr. Everard agreed to represent a client injured in a 1991 automobile accident. The case proceeded to mandatory arbitration in August 1995. At the hearing, Mr. Everard was sanctioned $750 for failing to file a timely arbitration brief. He paid the sanctions with a check that was returned due to insufficient funds. The arbitrator awarded Mr. Everard’s client $6,294.50. Mr. Everard told the client that she had a year to appeal the arbitration award and that he would file an appeal if he could not negotiate a settlement for more than the arbitration award. Mr. Everard did not negotiate a higher amount, appeal the arbitration award, or collect the arbitration award.
In September 1995, the client saw Mr. Everard in a nightclub. He told her that he had a $10,000 check waiting for her at his office, and to call him the next day to arrange to pick it up. The client called Mr. Everard several times between September 1995 and July 1996, but was not able to contact him. In mid-July, the client retained substitute counsel, who was not able to contact Mr. Everard and learned the status of the case from opposing counsel. Opposing counsel indicated that he would not disburse the arbitration award without a substitution of counsel signed by Mr. Everard.
On July 22, 1996, the client sent a certified letter to Mr. Everard indicating that she had retained substitute counsel. The letter was returned unclaimed. Substitute counsel called Mr. Everard several times between August and October 1996, until the phone message stated that the party (Mr. Everard) would not accept incoming calls from substitute counsel’s number. Substitute counsel filed a motion for an order substituting counsel. At the hearing, the judge directed that notice again be sent to Mr. Everard’s business address. On the morning of the second hearing, Mr. Everard delivered the client file and signed the substitution.
Matter 3: In March 1997, Mr. Everard agreed to defend a client against charges of driving under the influence and with a suspended license. The client’s case was in Whatcom County and Mr. Everard was in Spokane County. Mr. Everard told the client that he would send paperwork after the client sent him $1,000. On March 29, 1996, the client paid Mr. Everard a $1,000 cashier’s check. Approximately two days prior to the hearing, Mr. Everard contacted the client, said he would put the paperwork in the mail, and told the client to attend the arraignment himself and plead not guilty. The client appeared without counsel at the arraignment and pleaded not guilty. The client did not receive any paperwork from Mr. Everard prior to the May 23 pretrial conference date. The client called Mr. Everard several times, but received no response.
On May 20, 1996, Mr. Everard called the client and indicated that he would ask the court for a continuance. On May 21 and 22, Mr. Everard told the prosecuting attorney he would be faxing a notice of appearance and sending the paperwork necessary for a continuance. Mr. Everard did not fax a notice of appearance or send any continuance documentation. The client called the court and found that Mr. Everard had not appeared or continued the conference. The client retained new counsel to appear at the pretrial conference.
On May 24, 1996, the client sent Mr. Everard a letter demanding refund of his $1,000 within 10 days. In late July or August 1996, Mr. Everard called the client, stating that he had done some work on the case and should be paid for his work. Later, Mr. Everard agreed to refund $700, but did not send this amount to the client.
In April 1997, Mr. Everard told the Office of Disciplinary Counsel that he had sent a $1,000 money order to the client and his new lawyer. His letter to disciplinary counsel included a copy of the money order. In October 1997, the client and lawyer indicated they had not received the money order. Mr. Everard then sent a money order dated October 31, 1997.
Matter 4: In June 1995, The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) sent Mr. Everard a letter suggesting that he contact his client. He did not contact the client within a reasonable time. ODC made several informal attempts to obtain a copy of the client’s file. Although Mr. Everard promised to provide a copy of the file if the client paid the copying charge, neither the client nor ODC was able to contact Mr. Everard to obtain the copies and determine the cost. ODC sent Mr. Everard a request for a response to the client’s grievance, but Mr. Everard did not respond to this request. Mr. Everard did not claim the certified letter from ODC informing him that if he did not respond within 10 days he would be liable for the costs of his deposition.
Mr. Everard’s conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4, requiring lawyers to promptly comply with clients’ reasonable requests for information about their matters; 1.14(b)(4), requiring lawyers to promptly deliver client funds upon request; 1.15(d), requiring lawyers to take reasonable steps to protect clients’ interests upon withdrawal from representation; 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; 1.5, requiring lawyers’ fees to be reasonable; and RLD 2.8, requiring lawyers to promptly and reasonably respond to disciplinary counsel’s requests for information in disciplinary investigations.
Leslie Allen represented the Bar Association. Frank Conklin and Mr. Everard acted as co-counsel. The hearing officer was Timothy Esser.
|