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
David S. Teske (WSBA No. 14823, admitted 1984), of Edmonds, was disbarred, effective September 15, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2002 and 2003 involving settling client matters without authority, misrepresentations in legal documents, deceit of a notary public, misappropriation of client funds, and failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation.
Matter 1: In 2002, Mr. Teske agreed to represent two clients in a lawsuit against their former employer. Mr. Teske negotiated a settlement of both claims without adequately consulting with the clients or obtaining authorization to settle for the amounts accepted. Mr. Teske executed settlement documents in which he falsely stated that the documents had been fully reviewed by the clients. Mr. Teske deceitfully persuaded a notary public to notarize signatures purporting to be those of the clients on the settlement documents. Mr. Teske received settlement checks in both matters and deposited them into his firm’s bank account, but he never paid either client any of the settlement proceeds.
Matter 2: In 2003, Mr. Teske failed to provide written responses to two grievances as required by the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct. Mr. Teske subsequently failed to appear as commanded by a subpoena duces tecum issued by disciplinary counsel in connection with the investigation of the grievances.
Ms. Teske’s conduct violated RPCs 1.2(a), requiring a lawyer to abide by a client’s decision regarding a settlement offer; 1.4, requiring a lawyer to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions; 4.1(a), prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation; 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; 1.14, requiring a lawyer to deposit client funds into a trust account and to pay to the client funds that the client is entitled to receive; and 8.4(b), prohibiting commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; and ELC 5.3(e), requiring a lawyer to promptly respond to any inquiry or discovery request made in connection with a disciplinary investigation.
Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Mr. Teske represented himself. James C. Lawrie was the hearing officer.
Suspended
Hari L. Alipuria (WSBA No. 26899, admitted 1997), of Tacoma, was suspended for 90 days, effective September 15, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a stipulation. This discipline was based on his conduct in failing to competently and diligently represent a client and in failing to comply with the terms of a prior disciplinary stipulation.
Matter 1: Mr. Alipuria represented a client who had been charged with first-degree assault of a child for allegedly intentionally burning his infant son. Although the client’s spouse was originally charged with the crime, those charges were dismissed after the client informed the spouse’s lawyer that the client had accidentally burned the child. The defense theory of the case was that the spouse had burned the infant and the client had then fabricated the story of his involvement to protect her.
• Prior to trial, Mr. Alipuria moved to suppress the testimony of the spouse’s lawyer. Although Mr. Alipuria knew that the issue turned on the client’s subjective belief that an attorney-client relationship existed with the other lawyer, Mr. Alipuria failed to call the client to testify at the hearing and failed to offer any other evidence of the client’s subjective belief. The motion was denied.
• Mr. Alipuria listed the client’s seven-year-old child as a trial witness. Mr. Alipuria and the client believed that the child would testify that the spouse burned the infant. Mr. Alipuria did not interview the child prior to trial, nor did he call the child as a witness.
• Knowing that the spouse had taken a polygraph examination, Mr. Alipuria moved prior to trial to exclude any reference to the polygraph examination. Despite having been instructed not to do so, the spouse volunteered during her testimony that she had taken a polygraph examination. Mr. Alipuria did not object, ask for a curative instruction, or move for a mistrial.
• Prior to trial, the client had taken a number of polygraph examinations. He believed that the results were inconclusive. The client requested that Mr. Alipuria not disclose the results of the examinations with the prosecuting attorney. Mr. Alipuria nonetheless volunteered to the prosecuting attorney that the client had failed a polygraph examination.
The jury found the client guilty. On appeal, the conviction was reversed and remanded, in part on grounds that Mr. Alipuria had provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
Matter 2: In 2002, Mr. Alipuria entered into a disciplinary stipulation for violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in two prior matters. The terms of the stipulation imposed a probationary period requiring, inter alia, that Mr. Alipuria (1) propose a practice monitor within two weeks of the commencement of probation; and (2) within 30 days, provide proof of malpractice insurance coverage or of the rejection of his applications for such coverage. Respondent did not propose a practice monitor or apply for malpractice coverage within the time frames required by the stipulation.
Mr. Alipuria’s conduct violated RPCs 1.1, requiring a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client; 1.3, requiring a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; and 1.6, prohibiting a lawyer from revealing a client’s confidences or secrets unless the client consents after consultation; and former RLDs 1.1(m), subjecting a lawyer to discipline for failure to meet the conditions of probation or a stipulation; and 5.2(b), subjecting a lawyer to discipline for failure to comply with a condition of probation.
Sachia Stonefeld Powell represented the Bar Association. Leland G. Ripley represented Mr. Alipuria. David B. Condon was the hearing officer.
Suspended
Phillip E. Egger (WSBA No. 11611, admitted 1981), of Bellevue, was suspended for six months, effective September 30, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 1989 involving billing a client for work that had already been paid for by a third party and failing to obtain a client’s written consent to a potential conflict of interest. For additional information please see In re Discipline of Egger, 152 Wn.2d 393, 98 P.3d 477 (2004).
Matter 1: In 1989, Mr. Egger assisted Client A in making a loan to a condominium development. The loan documents provided that the borrower would pay the lender’s legal fees up to $15,000. Mr. Egger billed Client A $21,000 for attorney fees and costs incurred in the loan transaction. Although the borrower paid Mr. Egger’s firm $15,000 for legal fees, the payment was not credited to Client A’s account, and Client A also paid the full $21,000 bill.
Matter 2: In 1985, Client B contacted Mr. Egger’s law firm regarding representation of her interests as an unsecured creditor in a bankruptcy proceeding filed by a third party, to whom Client B had loaned $66,000. Client B did not recover the amount of the loan. In 1989, Client B persuaded another of Mr. Egger’s clients, Client A, to loan $300,000 to the third-party debtor. Mr. Egger negotiated the loan. Although Client B was listed as a client in firm records at the time, and although Mr. Egger made efforts to secure $66,000 as payment to Client B out of the loan proceeds, Mr. Egger did not obtain Client A’s written consent after full disclosure of the conflict of interest.
Mr. Egger’s conduct violated RPCs 1.5(a), requiring that a lawyer’s fee be reasonable; and 1.7(b), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer’s own interests, unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents in writing after a full disclosure.
Evan L. Schwab, Leslie C. Allen, and Scott G. Busby represented the Bar Association. Jeffrey A. Beaver and James L. Magee represented Mr. Egger. Michael V. Riggio was the hearing officer.
Reprimanded
Stuart I. Folinsky (WSBA No. 20687, admitted 1991), of Los Angeles, CA, was ordered to receive two reprimands, effective September 30, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline in accordance with orders of the State Bar Court of the State of California. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2002, 2003, and 2004, involving acts of misconduct in multiple immigration matters.
Matter 1: This matter comprises -misconduct in three client matters.
• In 2002, a client paid Mr. Folinsky $900 to prepare an I-360 visa petition. Mr. Folinsky failed to timely file the petition, and the client was subject to deportation proceedings.
• In September 2003, Mr. Folinsky was paid $3,000 to represent two clients in an immigration matter. In October 2003, the clients terminated the representation and hired another lawyer. Although the clients repeatedly requested that he do so, Mr. Folinsky failed to promptly refund the unearned fees.
• In 2001, Mr. Folinsky was hired to prepare an Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, Form I-140. After numerous inquiries from the client, Mr. Folinsky discovered in February 2004 that he had never filed the petition.
Matter 2: This matter comprises misconduct in two client matters.
• In 1993, a client paid Mr. Folinsky $1,500 to represent her in connection with an application for asylum. From November 1993 through mid-1995, Mr. Folinsky took no affirmative steps to respond to an INS letter expressing an intention to deny the application for asylum, and he did not communicate with the client. In August 1995, following her marriage, the client paid Mr. Folinsky another $465 for an adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. Mr. Folinsky did not respond to the client’s numerous requests for information, and failed to file any documents on behalf of the client. The client sued Mr. Folinsky, seeking return of all fees paid to him, and a judgment was entered against him.
• In 1996, Mr. Folinsky was paid $560 to file a petition for permanent residence. Mr. Folinsky did not file the petition, nor did he respond to numerous client inquiries concerning the status of the case. Although the client terminated the representation and requested a refund, Mr. Folinsky failed to promptly refund the unearned fees.
Mr. Folinsky’s conduct violated California Business and Professions Code § 6068(m), requiring a lawyer to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries from a client; California Rules of Professional Conduct 3-700(D)(2), requiring a lawyer to promptly return unearned fees; and 3-110(a), prohibiting a lawyer from intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly failing to perform legal services with competence.
Felice Congalton represented the Bar Association. Mr. Folinsky represented himself.
Nondisciplinary Notices
Suspended Pending Outcome of Disciplinary Proceedings
John B. Jackson III (WSBA No. 5208, admitted 1973), of Bremerton, was suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to ELC 7.2(a)(1), effective October 20, 2004, by an order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary action.
Suspended Pending Outcome of Disciplinary Proceedings
Kevin M. Kopra (WSBA No. 29651, admitted 1999), of Seattle, was suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to ELC 7.3, effective October 11, 2004, by an order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary action.
Suspended Pending Outcome of Disciplinary Proceedings
Phillip E. Miller (WSBA No. 7703, admitted 1977), of Bellevue, was suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to ELC 7.2(a)(2), effective September 29, 2004, by an order of the Washington State Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary action. (Mr. Miller is to be distinguished from Phillip S. Miller of Seattle.)
