January 2004

Disciplinary Notices

These notices of imposition of disciplinary sanctions and actions are published pursuant to Rule 3.5(d) of the Washington State Supreme Court Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct, and pursuant to the February 18, 1995, policy statement of the WSBA Board of Governors.

For a complete copy of any disciplinary decision, call the Washington State Disciplinary Board at 206-733-5926, leaving the case name, and your name and address.

Disbarred
Rolfy DeDamm (WSBA No. 20476, admitted 1991), of Snohomish, resigned from membership in the Washington State Bar Association in lieu of disbarment, effective March 31, 2003. This discipline was based on his conduct in 1998 involving failure to adequately supervise nonlawyer assistants in an insurance-fraud matter.
 
In 1998, Mr. DeDamm was the managing partner of a law firm. During 1998, the firm's nonlawyer office manager and two clients staged a burglary of one of the client's homes and submitted a false insurance claim. The office manager filed the fraudulent insurance claim on behalf of the firm. Mr. DeDamm learned of the fraudulent claim and told the client that the firm would no longer represent him. However, to protect the client's interests, Mr. DeDamm told the insurance company that the client had terminated the firm's services. The client later settled the claim and the funds were deposited into the firm's trust account. Mr. DeDamm signed a trust-account check disbursing $5,220 of the settlement funds to himself for attorney's fees in an unrelated matter. In 2003, Mr. DeDamm paid restitution of this amount to the insurance company.

Mr. DeDamm's conduct violated RPC 5.3(b), requiring lawyers to supervise nonlawyer assistants; and RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Robert Chadwell represented Mr. DeDamm.

Disbarred
Robert Alan Wright (WSBA No. 19180, admitted 1989), of Tacoma, was disbarred, following a hearing, by order of the Supreme Court, effective March 26, 2003. This discipline was based on his conduct from 1998 through 2001, involving false statements to the tribunal, his client, and others; dismissing a lawsuit without the clients' consent; and lack of diligence in three client matters. (Mr. Wright is to be distinguished from Robert A. Wright of Lakewood.)

Matter 1: In 1998, Mr. Wright agreed to represent Mr. and Mrs. C in a lawsuit claiming the seller failed to disclose defects in the home they purchased. The case was scheduled for arbitration in January 2000. All of the parties and opposing counsel appeared for the arbitration, but Mr. Wright did not. He knew about the arbitration, but did not appear, because he was intoxicated. Mr. Wright told his client, the arbitrator, and his receptionist that he could not attend because his brother, a firefighter, had died in a fire. Mr. Wright had a separate trial set to begin the next day also. He told his receptionist he could not attend the trial either, because he was traveling to be with his sister-in-law due to his brother's death. Mr. Wright's law partner appeared in the second trial and obtained a continuance. On January 20, a firm associate learned that Mr. Wright's statements were not true. Mr. Wright eventually admitted the misrepresentations to his law partner, but stated he would not disclose them to the court until after the cases had settled. In February 2000, Mr. Wright admitted to the court his misrepresentation in the second matter. Mr. Wright agreed to a stipulation dismissing the Cs' lawsuit, without their authorization.

Matter 2: In September 2000, Mr. Wright decided to stop practicing law as soon as possible. In October 2000, he agreed to represent the parents in a claim in their daughter's estate. The parents believed they had an ownership claim in a modular home on the daughter's property. Mr. Wright filed a notice of appearance, but took no other action on the clients' case. Opposing counsel sent Mr. Wright letters about this issue, but he did not respond. In late December, the clients learned that Mr. Wright was leaving the practice of law, asked for their financial records, and learned that they had been lost. The personal representative mailed the rejection of the parents' claim to Mr. Wright, but he did not forward it to the clients. The firm refunded the clients' advance fee deposit.

Mr. Wright's conduct violated RPCs 1.2(a), requiring lawyers to abide by the client's decisions concerning the objectives of the representation; 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep their clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters; 3.3, prohibiting lawyers from making false statements of fact to the tribunal; 4.1, prohibiting knowingly making false statements of fact to third parties; and 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

Anthony Butler represented the Bar Association. Mr. Wright represented himself. The hearing officer was Steven Hale.

Suspended
Douglas S. Snyder (WSBA No. 23762, admitted 1994), of Portland, Oregon, was suspended for one year, based on a suspension order from the Oregon Supreme Court. The Washington Supreme Court's order of reciprocal discipline was effective January 27, 2003. This discipline was based on his lack of diligence in a client matter and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation in 2000.
 
Mr. Snyder represented the husband in a marriage-dissolution action. In February 2000, the parties reached an agreement during a court hearing and the judge ordered Mr. Snyder to prepare the agreed final pleadings. Mr. Snyder did not prepare the pleadings. In October 2000, the court notified Mr. Snyder that the dissolution would be dismissed if no further action was taken. Mr. Snyder failed to take action and the case was dismissed. Mr. Snyder failed to cooperate with the Oregon disciplinary investigation of this matter.
 
Mr. Snyder's conduct violated DR 1-102(a)(4), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; DR 6-101(A), requiring lawyers to provide competent representation to a client; DR 6-101(B), prohibiting lawyers from neglecting legal matters entrusted to them; and DR 1-103(C), requiring a lawyer who is the subject of a disciplinary investigation to respond fully and truthfully to inquiries from, and comply with reasonable requests of, a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon the conduct of lawyers, subject only to the exercise of any applicable right or privilege.
 
Felice Congalton represented the Bar Association. Mr. Snyder represented himself.

Admonished
Charles J. McCullough (WSBA No. 12486, admitted 1982), of Tacoma, was admonished by a review committee of the Disciplinary Board on February 7, 2003. The admonition was based upon his lack of diligence and communication with a client in 2001. (Mr. McCullough is to be distinguished from Charles M. McCullough of Olympia.)

In April 2002, Mr. McCullough represented a client charged with driving with a suspended license and defective equipment. Mr. McCullough advised the client that Mr. McCullough did not need to attend the client's arraignment. The court continued the arraignment and instructed Mr. McCullough to appear. Mr. McCullough again failed to appear, so the court entered a written order requiring his appearance. Mr. McCullough appeared for the arraignment 90 minutes late. Later, Mr. McCullough continued the trial date without his client's permission. The client learned of the new trial date from the court clerk.

Mr. McCullough's conduct violated RPCs 1.1, requiring lawyers to competently represent clients; 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent clients; and 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed of the status of their matters.

Marsha Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. Mr. McCullough represented himself.

Admonished
Damon A.  Platis (WSBA No. 24719, admitted 1995), of Lynnwood, was admonished by a review committee of the Disciplinary Board on December 6, 2002.  The admonition was based  upon his making a misrepresentation to the court.

Ms. H requested a restraining order against three people.  Mr. Platis represented one of these three defendants.  During the hearing, the judge asked Mr. Platis if he represented the other two defendants.  Mr. Platis told the court that he did represent the other two defendants, when he did not. 

Mr. Platis's conduct violated RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

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

Back to table of contents >>