| Description: |
Stephen B. Blanchard (WSBA No. 12294, admitted 1982), of Edmonds, was disbarred, effective July 23, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline is based on conduct in two matters involving failure to provide competent representation, lack of diligence, failure to communicate, charging unreasonable fees, trust account irregularities, withholding client funds, and violations of duties in connection with disciplinary matters.
Matter No. 1: In May 2000, a client hired Mr. Blanchard and paid him $1,300 to make a claim against the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which had cut down trees on her property without her permission. During 2001, the client telephoned Mr. Blanchard repeatedly concerning her claim, but he took no action. In March 2002, Mr. Blanchard filed a standard tort claim form with the Office of Risk Management on behalf of his client. Although the claim form clearly stated “Claimant must sign this claim form,” Mr. Blanchard did not inform the client, but instead signed it himself as her attorney. After the claim form was filed, the client called Mr. Blanchard repeatedly over a period of months asking him to file suit against the DNR before the statute of limitations expired. Mr. Blanchard filed suit in October 2003, five months after the statute of limitations had run out. The DNR moved for summary judgment based on the expiration of the statute of limitations and the fact that the client had not signed the claim form; the court entered summary judgment against the client on both grounds. Mr. Blanchard told the client that summary judgment was granted because she had not signed the claim form, without informing her that summary judgment had been entered in part because the statute of limitations had run out.
Mr. Blanchard filed a notice of appeal from the summary judgment in March 2004. After filing the appeal, the Appeals Court warned him on several occasions that sanctions could be imposed because he failed to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Appeals Court eventually dismissed the appeal due to Mr. Blanchard’s failure to file an appellate brief and imposed $250 in sanctions against him. Mr. Blanchard later admitted that he had been negligent in pursuing the client’s claim. The client brought a malpractice claim against Mr. Blanchard and was awarded a monetary judgment against him, which he has not paid.
Matter No. 2: In December 2004, a client hired Mr. Blanchard to probate the estate of her brother, who had just died intestate. The client, who lived out of state, paid Mr. Blanchard an advance fee of $750 and $120 for a court filing fee. He deposited the entire amount into his general account. At the time of his death, the decedent’s assets consisted primarily of a Jeep and a retirement account. A car dealer offered to buy the Jeep for $2,050 on or before December 31, 2004, if the client or someone else obtained authority to sell it. The client placed the Jeep in a storage facility while awaiting legal authority. The client told Mr. Blanchard that she wanted to be appointed personal representative of her brother’s estate so that she could sell his Jeep and also obtain any mail the post office was holding for him. She also asked Mr. Blanchard to ascertain the status of the retirement account and the identity of any of its beneficiaries. The client returned to her home several days after hiring Mr. Blanchard and thereafter communicated with him by telephone and letter. He often failed to respond. On more than one occasion, the client requested an accounting of the money she had paid Mr. Blanchard, but he never provided one. Mr. Blanchard did not file a petition to probate the estate, did not communicate to the client why he failed to file the petition, and did not refund the money the client had paid him. Because no one was appointed personal representative of the estate, the offer to sell the Jeep expired, the storage facility took possession of it and the value did not rebound to the estate, and the post office would not release the decedent’s mail to the client and instead returned it to the senders.
A Michigan lawyer, on behalf of the client, wrote to Mr. Blanchard in March 2005 demanding copies of the decedent’s death certificate, the keys to the Jeep, and return of the money the client had paid. Mr. Blanchard did not comply with the requests, but contacted the client and assured her that he would perform the tasks for which she had hired him. Mr. Blanchard took no steps to ascertain the status of the decedent’s retirement account until he received the March letter from the Michigan lawyer. In May 2005, the Michigan lawyer again wrote to Mr. Blanchard, noting that Mr. Blanchard had not complied with the earlier request. He asked Mr. Blanchard to return the client’s file and the fees paid, and stated that he would advise the client to file a grievance with the Bar Association. Mr. Blanchard did not answer the second letter. His paralegal mailed to the client the Jeep’s keys and several death certificates and stated that Mr. Blanchard would provide a billing statement, which he did not do.
In February 2006, the clients in the two preceding matters filed grievances against Mr. Blanchard. He did not respond to the grievances or to subsequent certified letters from the Bar Association. Mr. Blanchard appeared for a deposition in April 2006 pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum, but failed to bring all of the documents listed in the subpoena. He did not produce any records relating to the money the client in the first matter paid him for his representation. He did produce billing statements for his representation of the client in the second matter; however, the bills included charges for work that was not performed by Mr. Blanchard.
Mr. Blanchard’s conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client; RPC 1.2(a), requiring lawyers to abide by the client’s decisions concerning the objectives of the representation; RPC 1.2(c), allowing a lawyer to limit the scope of representation if the limitation is reasonable under circumstances and the client consents after consultation; RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; former 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; former RPC 1.5(a), requiring attorneys’ fees to be reasonable; former RPC 1.14(a), requiring all funds of clients paid to a lawyer to be deposited in an interest-bearing trust account; RPC 1.14(b), requiring a lawyer to promptly notify a client of the receipt of his or her funds, maintain complete records of the funds, and promptly pay or deliver to the client the funds in the possession of the lawyer to which the client is entitled to receive; RPC 3.2, requiring a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; 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 of Enforcement for Lawyer Conduct in connection with a disciplinary matter.
Natalea Skvir represented the Bar Association. Mr. Blanchard represented himself. Lee Grochmal was the hearing officer. |