January 2003

Disciplinary Notices

These notices of imposition of disciplinary sanctions and actions are published pursuant to Rule 11.2(c)(4) of the Supreme Court's Rules for Lawyer Discipline, and pursuant to the February 18, 1995 policy statement of the WSBA Board of Governors.

Pursuant to Rule for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct 3.6(b), file materials relating to a matter concluded with an admonition may be destroyed five years after the admonition was issued. In admonition matters, it is the WSBA's policy to remove the disciplinary notice from the Washington State Bar News website archive five years after the admonition was issued, regardless of whether the WSBA's file materials are destroyed.

For a complete copy of any disciplinary decision, call the Washington State Disciplinary Board at 206-733-5926, leaving the case name and your address, or electronically submit your requests at http://pro.wsba.org/forms/publicrequest.asp. A list of recent disciplinary notices is available on the WSBA Website.

Richard R. Tassano (WSBA No. 13210, admitted 1983), of Everett, was disbarred effective October 15, 2002, by order of the Supreme Court approving a stipulation. Mr. Tassano did not admit or stipulate to the facts in the stipulation, but agreed that at a disciplinary hearing the WSBA would be able to prove that between July 1998 and December 2000 he used his employer's funds to make personal purchases.

In 1994, Mr. Tassano established the Washington Appellate Project (WAP). WAP provides representation for indigent appellants in criminal cases. Mr. Tassano was employed as the executive director of the WAP from 1994 until July 2001, when he resigned. Between July 8, 1998, and December 28, 2000, Mr. Tassano issued six checks from the WAP account totaling $16,218.72, payable to a camera supply store. In November and December 2000, Mr. Tassano issued two checks from the WAP account totaling $6,008.82 to a computer store. All these checks were for Mr. Tassano's personal benefit and were without legitimate business purposes.

Mr. Tassano's conduct violated RPCs 8.4(b), prohibiting criminal conduct that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; and 8.4(c), prohibiting engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

Linda Eide and Randy Beitel represented the Bar Association. Leland Ripley represented Mr. Tassano.

Dominic T. Santiago (WSBA No. 8560, admitted 1978), of Seattle, was suspended for two years by order of the Supreme Court following a hearing, effective May 8, 2002. The discipline is based on his failure to properly administer his IOLTA account from 1996 through 2001. The sanction in this matter was affected by significant aggravating factors.

In early 2001, the Bar Association audited Mr. Santiago's client trust account (IOLTA) for the period January 1996 through March 28, 2001. During this period, Mr. Santiago failed to maintain client ledgers or check registers sufficient to accurately track client account balances. In several instances, Mr. Santiago failed to pay clients money they were entitled to receive from his trust account. As of March 28, 2001, Mr. Santiago owed his clients $10,319.16 from his IOLTA account. As of this same day, Mr. Santiago's trust account was short $13,104.33 in client funds. Mr. Santiago frequently used a client's funds to advance costs or cover shortages for other clients.

During this same time period, Mr. Santiago commingled his funds with his clients' funds by leaving earned fees in the IOLTA account. Mr. Santiago frequently acted as the escrow agent in real estate transactions, preparing final settlement statements prior to making the final disbursements. The settlement statements were frequently inaccurate. On many occasions, Mr. Santiago overpaid buyer or seller expenses, underpaid escrow fees or costs, or failed to refund excess funds to the buyer or seller.

Mr. Santiago's conduct violated RPCs 1.14(a), requiring lawyers to deposit client funds into an IOLTA account and keep the lawyer's funds out of this account; 1.14(b) (3), requiring lawyers to maintain complete records of client funds and render appropriate accounting to clients; and 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients.

Kevin Bank represented the Bar Association. Douglas O. Whitlock and Joseph J. Ganz represented Mr. Santiago.

Brian L. Berkenmeier (WSBA No. 20421, admitted 1991), of Longview, was suspended for four months by order of the Supreme Court following a hearing, effective October 31, 2002. The discipline is based on his violation of court orders and unjustified acts of assault between March 1998 and January 2000.

In October 1998, Mr. Berkenmeier pleaded guilty to negligent driving in South Pacific District Court. In December 1998, he pleaded guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia in Cowlitz District Court. While on probation from these two charges, in January 1999 and again in October 1999, Mr. Berkenmeier pleaded guilty to domestic-violence assault.

During January 2000, Mr. Berkenmeier's probation was revoked on all four charges. While serving the resulting jail sentence, Mr. Berkenmeier failed to provide alternate representation for his clients. As of December 2001, Mr. Berkenmeier had completed all sentencing requirements.

Mr. Berkenmeier's conduct violated RLDs 1.1(a), prohibiting unjustified acts of assault or other acts reflecting disregard for the rule of law; 1.1(b), prohibiting willful disobedience or violation of court orders; 1.1(c), prohibiting violating the Oath of Attorney; and RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; and 1.4(a), requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters.

Eric Lindell represented the Bar Association. Mr. Berkenmeier represented himself. The hearing officer was William E. Fitzharris.

Dean W. Hamilton (WSBA No. 19416, admitted 1990), of Centralia, was suspended for 18 months by order of the Supreme Court approving a stipulation. Based on the circumstances in this case, the Court ordered the suspension to begin retroactively from December 10, 2001. The discipline is based on his 2000 conviction for violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.

In May 1999, Mr. Hamilton voluntarily transferred his license to practice law to inactive status. In 2000, Mr. Hamilton's license to practice law was suspended for failure to pay licensing fees. On May 19, 2000, Mr. Hamilton entered an Alford plea to a one-count violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, a felony. In November 2001, Mr. Hamilton submitted an application to transfer from suspended to inactive status. In that application, he disclosed his felony conviction. Mr. Hamilton's application to change his status was denied. He completed his sentence in June 2002.

Mr. Hamilton's conduct violated RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting lawyers from committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.

Leslie Allen represented Bar Association. Mr. Hamilton represented himself.

Clifford Stanley Hess (WSBA No. 16554, admitted 1986), of Shoreline, was suspended for two years by order of the Supreme Court approving a stipulation dated August 16, 2002. The effective date of the suspension is retroactive to September 11, 2000. The discipline is based on Mr. Hess's 2000 guilty plea to one count of filing a false tax return.

On June 20, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington accepted Mr. Hess's guilty plea to one count of filing a false tax return, a felony. The charge was based on Mr. Hess signing his 1992 individual tax return and schedules without examining them to determine that they were true, complete and correct. Mr. Hess's signature on the return constituted a written declaration that he had, in fact, examined his returns and the schedules; however, he had not examined the return and schedules. The false statement involved was his declaration that he had examined the return and schedules. Mr. Hess was interimly suspended on September 11, 2000.

Mr. Hesss' conduct violated RPCs 8.4(b), prohibiting lawyers from committing criminal acts reflecting adversely on their honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; and 8.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonestly, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

Christine Gray represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Hess.

Paul H. King (WSBA No. 7370, admitted 1977), of Seattle, was suspended for two years by order of the Supreme Court approving a stipulation. The discipline is based on his failure to follow a client's instructions, charge a reasonable fee, properly administer his client trust account, and properly file and pay state and federal taxes from 1996 through 2000.

Matter 1: In May 1998, Mr. King agreed to represent two clients in a wage claim against their former employer. On October 1, 1999, opposing counsel made a settlement offer of $14,000. The clients instructed Mr. King to accept the settlement offer. On that same day, Mr. King wrote a letter to opposing counsel stating that he would not accept less than $17,500. On October 7, after speaking with the clients, a member of Mr. King's staff told opposing counsel that the clients would accept the settlement offer. On October 8, opposing counsel wrote a confirming letter and enclosed a copy of the settlement agreement. The clients visited Mr. King's office that day, taking a copy of the settlement agreement and again instructing the office to accept the settlement.

On October 13, Mr. King sent opposing counsel a letter stating that the clients were proceeding to trial. On October 15, opposing counsel received the signed settlement agreement directly from the clients. When the settlement check arrived, Mr. King demanded 50 percent of the gross recovery, instead of the 40 percent stated in the fee agreement. Mr. King told the clients that the check would remain in his trust account until the "fee dispute" was resolved. Worried they would never receive their money, the clients agreed to pay $6,918 in attorney's fees. The clients received $6,293.72.

Mr. King's conduct in this matter violated RPCs 1.2, requiring lawyers to abide by their clients' decisions whether to accept an offer of settlement; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients informed of the status of their matters; 8.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonestly, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and 1.5, requiring lawyers' fees to be reasonable.

Matter 2: From January 1999 through May 2000, Mr. King used a credit-union share account for his office checking account, and sub-accounts of this share checking account for his client trust accounts. During this time, Mr. King deposited client funds into his office checking account and paid clients from this account. He did not maintain adequate records of client funds. Mr. King's nonlawyer assistants were responsible for most trust-account transactions. Mr. King did not provide proper training or supervision.

Matter 3: Mr. King employed a legal assistant, Mr. S. In April 1999, Mr. S accepted a $1,000 cash payment from a client. He placed this payment in the safe in Mr. King's Bremerton office, without any identification or written records. When Mr. King learned of the payment, he made no effort to identify the funds or create written records. At a later date, the funds were removed from the safe. Mr. King was not able to determine when the funds were removed.

Mr. King's conduct in these matters violated RPC 1.14, requiring lawyers to identify and label clients' property, and maintain complete records of client funds and property in the lawyer's possession.

Tax matters: Mr. King did not stipulate to the facts in these matters, but agreed that if they proceeded to a public hearing, there is a substantial likelihood that the Bar Association would be able to prove these facts. From 1996 through 2000, Mr. King failed to file returns and pay business and occupation tax to the Department of Revenue. After the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) began the investigation, Mr. King filed the returns and paid the taxes and penalties. During this same time period, Mr. King always employed at least one full-time nonlawyer assistant. Mr. King knowingly failed to report his payroll amount to the Department of Labor and Industries. Additionally, Mr. King failed to file federal tax returns for 1996 through 2000. After ODC began this investigation, Mr. King filed returns for 1996 through 1999 and obtained an extension for 2000.

Mr. King's conduct violated RPCs 8.4(b), prohibiting committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; and 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

Becky Neal and Robert Deutscher represented the Bar Association. Peter Cogan represented Mr. King.

Hyon C. Pak (WSBA No. 24238, admitted 1994), of Seattle, was suspended for 15 days by order of the Supreme Court approving a stipulation. Mr. Pak was reinstated to active status effective June 14, 2002. The discipline was based on his failure to diligently represent a client in 2000 and failure to appear for a deposition in the disciplinary investigation in 2001.

In late 1999, Mr. Pak agreed to represent a client in a petition to modify her parenting plan. The client's employer transferred her job out of state, but the parenting plan required that her children attend school in either Bellevue or Auburn, where the mother lived. The client asked Mr. Pak to request that the court modify the parenting plan to allow her to take the children out of state with her. In October 1999, Mr. Pak filed the client's motion, but the court denied it, pending a new guardian ad litem report.

In November 1999, Mr. Pak filed a motion for reconsideration of the commissioner's decision. The commissioner's order indicated that her prior ruling did not set up a restriction on the mother's ability to move with the children, but "merely denied her motion without prejudice subject to an interim report from the GAL as to whether the move was in the best interest of the children." Mr. Pak then wrote a letter to the client stating that he did not interpret the court's order as a restriction on moving the children pending resolution of the matter. The letter also suggested that the client ask her employer's in-house counsel to review the court order and request an extension on her relocation date. In reliance on Mr. Pak's letter, the client relocated to Arizona with the children.

In February 2000, following a contested hearing, the commissioner held Mr. Pak's client in contempt and ordered her to pay $2,500 in attorney's fees. In August 2000, the parties settled the parenting-plan issues, but could not agree on child support and other financial issues. The parenting plan required arbitration of these unresolved issues. Mr. Pak sent his client a copy of the arbitrator's letter, asking that she complete a new financial declaration. The client did not respond to this letter. Mr. Pak did not contact the client and did not submit any documentation to the arbitrator.

In September 2000, the arbitrator granted all of the husband's expense requests because Mr. Pak's client did not respond. Mr. Pak did not inform his client of the decision within the 10-day period for reconsideration. In January 2001, Mr. Pak wrote a letter to his client expressing remorse and offering a financial settlement. His client did not respond. In June and July 2001, Mr. Pak failed to respond to the Bar Association's requests for response to the client's grievance. In October 2001, Mr. Pak failed to comply with a subpoena requiring his presence for a deposition.

Mr. Pak's conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4(a), requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters; and RLD 2.8(a), requiring lawyers to cooperate with disciplinary investigations.

Kevin Bank represented the Bar Association. Patrick Sheldon represented Mr. Pak.

James J. Rosenberger (WSBA No. 16043, admitted 1986), of Seattle, was suspended for 30 days by order of the Supreme Court approving a stipulation, effective May 29, 2002. The discipline was based on his acting as a lawyer while his license to practice law was suspended during July and August 2001.

On July 25, 2001, the Supreme Court entered an order suspending Mr. Rosenberger's license to practice law for nonpayment of WSBA dues. On July 26, 2001, the Bar Association notified Mr. Rosenberger of his suspension by certified mail. Mr. Rosenberger did not file an affidavit establishing compliance with the provisions of RLD Title 8. Mr. Rosenberger indicated he did not receive the order of suspension or the certified-mail notice of his suspension, and learned of his suspension on August 31, 2001, from U.S. District Court. That same day, Mr. Rosenberger appeared at Bar Association offices and made full payment on his outstanding membership fees, late fees and penalties, and requested that his status be changed to active. Mr. Rosenberger disclosed that he had been practicing law during the period of his suspension. On September 5, 2001, the Supreme Court reinstated Mr. Rosenberger to active atatus.

Mr. Rosenberger's conduct violated RPC 5.5(a), prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; and RLDs 8.2, prohibiting a suspended lawyer from accepting any new retainers, giving any legal advice, or acting as a lawyer in a pending case or legal matter of any nature after the effective date of his suspension; and 8.3, requiring a suspended lawyer, within 25 days after the effective date of a suspension, to file an affidavit stating that he has fully complied with the provisions of these rules.

Becky Neal represented the Bar Association. Paul Burns represented Mr. Rosenberger.

Charles E. Robbins (WSBA No. 3976, admitted 1967), of Puyallup, received a reprimand on October 18, 2002, following entry of an agreed decision. The discipline was based on his disclosing client confidences in 2001.

In August 2000, Mr. Robbins agreed to represent a client charged with two felonies in Pierce County Superior Court. In February 2001, the client failed to appear for a hearing and the court issued a bench warrant for her arrest. In March 2001, Mr. Robbins filed a motion requesting permission to withdraw from the representation. In the supporting affidavit filed with the court, Mr. Robbins stated: "[The client's] failure to appear was not out of mistake. She was fully aware of her court date. She called my office while I was at the courthouse appearing on her case and indicated to my staff that she was 'too ill' to come to court. She is well aware that my office is open at 7:30 a.m., yet she chose not to contact me at that time. My staff advised [the client] that if she failed to appear for her hearing a warrant out [sic] be issued. [The client] works, or used to work, at Signature Bail Bonds and she informed me during a telephone conversation I had with her later that morning that she knew 'it was no big deal not to appear for her hearing.'" The client did not consent to this disclosure.

Mr. Robbins's conduct violated RPC 1.6, prohibiting lawyers from revealing client confidences or secrets relating to representation without the client's consent after consultation.

Douglas Ende represented the Bar Association. Steven J. Brown represented Mr. Robbins. The hearing officer was James C. Lawrie.

Ann B. Witte (WSBA No. 6323, admitted 1975) of Portland, Oregon, received a reprimand in August 2001. The Washington Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline based on an April 2, 2000, order from the Oregon Supreme Court. The discipline was based on her failure to diligently represent a client in 1999.

In 1998, Ms. Witte agreed to represent the tenants in a lawsuit filed by the landlord for damages caused by the tenants' pet. In January 1999, the arbitrator awarded the landlord $450 plus costs, but denied attorney's fees. Later, the court amended the award to include attorney's fees. Ms. Witte did not inform her client of the attorney-fees award. Ms. Witte also failed to notify her clients that opposing counsel had proposed a payment plan to satisfy the judgment.

Ms. Witte's conduct violated Oregon Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients.

Felice Congalton represented the Bar Association. Ms. Witte represented herself.