| Description: |
Dean E. White (WSBA No. 27282, admitted 1997), of Spokane, was ordered to receive a reprimand on May 12, 2008, following a stipulation approved by a hearing officer. This discipline is based on conduct involving failure to diligently represent a client’s interests, lack of communication, and a conflict of interest.
On August 25 and 28, 2006, a client contacted Mr. White’s office to hire Mr. White to handle three traffic infractions with which the client had been charged. Mr. White had no record or recollection of these calls. The client initially represented himself and arranged with the prosecutor and the court to have all three matters scheduled to be heard at the same time on August 30, 2006. At the August hearing, the client obtained a continuance until September 27, 2006, because he wanted to hire Mr. White or another lawyer to assist him in resolving the matters.
In early September 2006, the client moved to Hawaii. Prior to September 27, 2006, the client’s mother contacted Mr. White about representing her son. There are conflicting accounts as to whether the client’s mother told Mr. White about all three of the traffic violations. For the purposes of the stipulation, the parties agreed that Mr. White was informed about only one of the traffic infractions; however, Mr. White would have known about the other traffic infractions had he had direct contact with the client. On September 25, 2006, the client’s mother issued a $250 check to Mr. White to represent her son in connection with the traffic infractions. Mr. White received and cashed the check on October 4, 2006. The client understood that Mr. White would be appearing on his behalf at the September 27, 2006, hearing. There are conflicting accounts as to whether Mr. White told the client’s mother that he was going to appear at the September 27, 2006, hearing. In any event, Mr. White did not appear on behalf of the client at the hearing.
As a result of Mr. White’s failure to appear on behalf of his client, the Court issued orders against the client for failing to appear in all three traffic matters. On October 3, 2006, the Court entered judgments against the client in the amounts of $560, $302, and $153, and prepared the first notice of collection for each judgment. The judgments were assigned to a collection agency in November 2006. Consequently, the client’s driver’s license was suspended and the client lost his job as a delivery person. On December 27, 2006, Mr. White filed a notice of appearance in one of the three traffic offenses filed against the client.
Starting in October 2006, Mr. White engaged in discussions with the prosecutor regarding the resolution of one of the three traffic infractions. At this time, Mr. White learned of the two other traffic infractions and incorrectly presumed that the client intended for him to handle only one of the three traffic infractions. This misunderstanding could have been remedied had Mr. White had direct contact with the client. Mr. White never disclosed or relayed to the client the substance of his settlement discussions with the prosecutor during October and November 2006. Mr. White never had any contact with the client regarding the traffic infractions until several months after the client discovered that judgments had been entered in all three matters. Mr. White did not have any contact information for the client, and never attempted to obtain this information from the client’s mother. Mr. White discussed the substance of the settlement negotiations with the client’s mother, and allowed her to decide whether to accept or decline the prosecutor’s offers without the client’s consent or knowledge of the offers. The client ultimately hired another lawyer in June 2007 to resolve the orders for failing to appear, remove the traffic infractions from collection, and reset the matters for contested hearings.
Mr. White’s conduct violated 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 1.8(f), prohibiting a lawyer from accepting compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless the client consents after consultation, there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship, and information relating to the representation of a client is protected as required by the rules.
Jonathan Burke represented the Bar Association. Julie Twyford represented Mr. White. |