| Description: |
Noel Lerner (WSBA No. 29978, admitted 2000), of Enumclaw, was suspended for six months, effective May 23, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This discipline is based on conduct in two matters involving lack of competent representation, failure to communicate, failure to act with reasonable diligence and make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation, false statements to a tribunal, trust-account irregularities, failure to take steps reasonably necessary to protect clients’ interests, and violations of a court order.
Matter No. 1: Ms. W and her first husband were married in Washington and had four children before dissolving their marriage in another state. Although the children lived with Ms. W at first, she later remarried and lived out of state while the children eventually returned to Washington with her ex-husband. He obtained a default judgment against Ms. W in a Washington court, requiring her to pay a substantial amount of child support and establishing a cumbersome visitation plan.
In December 2003, Ms. W found Ms. Lerner on the Internet and hired her from outside the state to try to modify the Washington support order and visitation. They executed a fee agreement that specified Ms. Lerner would provide itemized bills on a regular basis. Ms. Lerner’s approach was to challenge jurisdiction and nullify the prior court orders and thereby obtain a complete reversal of the custody arrangement, but her client repeatedly stated that her goal at the time was only to modify the orders, rather than disrupt the children’s lives with an abrupt change of custody. At the time, Ms. W was working and the support obligation consumed a large portion of her income; in the course of the representation, she had another child and became unemployed, making the support obligation even more burdensome.
Over a period of eight months, Ms. Lerner filed no pleadings and took no action to further her client’s objectives. She lacked the level of competence necessary to address the jurisdictional issues and ultimately ignored the matter. Meanwhile, Ms. W sent increasingly urgent e-mails inquiring about the status of her case, but received little or no response; when she repeatedly requested an accounting of her fee deposit, she received none.
In August 2004, Ms. Lerner withdrew from Ms. W’s case without informing her client. After Ms. W filed her grievance, Ms. Lerner’s office generated a reconstructed billing statement but she did not send it to her client. She ultimately refunded Ms. W’s fee.
Matter No. 2: Mr. Y was the subject of an administrative action to collect child support based on his having signed an affidavit acknowledging paternity of a child. The child’s mother received financial assistance from the state of Washington, which then instituted proceedings against Mr. Y to recover the amount of that assistance. However, the child’s mother later submitted an affidavit stating that another man, not Mr. Y, was actually the child’s father and was supporting the child.
Mr. Y hired Ms. Lerner to take action to relieve him of the support obligation. When she appeared in the administrative support proceedings on Mr. Y’s behalf, Ms. Lerner was informed that it was not within the jurisdiction of the administrative judge to grant the relief she sought. Ms. Lerner was told that she would first need to petition the Superior Court in order to disestablish Mr. Y’s paternity, and the administrative proceedings were continued to afford Ms. Lerner the opportunity to do so.
For nearly two years, Ms. Lerner obtained numerous continuances based on her false representations to opposing counsel and the administrative court that she was seeking relief in superior court. In the meantime, her client was obligated to continue paying the state installments on the balance it was due. The administrative judge finally ordered Ms. Lerner to provide a declaration as evidence that she had taken action in superior court, but Ms. Lerner failed to comply. By the time she moved to initiate action in superior court, her client had finished paying the Division of Child Support more than the amount it originally sought and the administrative proceedings were closed.
Ms. Lerner’s conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client; former RPC 1.2(a), requiring a lawyer to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and to consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; RPC 3.3(a)(1), prohibiting a lawyer from making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; 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 1.14(b)(3), requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to his or her client regarding them; 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; and RPC 8.4(j), prohibiting a lawyer from willfully disobeying or violating a court order directing him or her to do or cease doing an act which he or she ought to do or cease doing in good faith.
Natalea Skvir represented the Bar Association. Kurt M. Bulmer represented Ms. Lerner. Stephen D. Funderburk was the hearing officer. |