August 2008

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.

NOTE: Approximately 30,000 persons are eligible to practice law in Washington state. Some of them share the same or similar names. Bar News strives to include a clarification whenever an attorney listed in the Disciplinary Notices has the same name as another WSBA member; however, all discipline reports should be read carefully for names, cities, and bar numbers.

Disbarred

Robert Neil Dompier (WSBA No. 10871, admitted 1980), of Spokane, was disbarred, effective May 15, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following approval of a stipulation. This discipline is based on conduct involving theft, dishonest conduct, violating a duty imposed by the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct (ELCs), and acts of moral turpitude.

Mr. Dompier’s grandparents established funds during their lifetimes for the education of their great-grandchildren. Mr. Dompier’s father managed the funds until 1996. In 1996, Mr. Dompier assumed management of the funds and deposited them into individual accounts for his children and those of his three brothers. Individual trust accounts were established in the names of each child pursuant to the Washington Uniform Transfers to Minors Act, RCW 11.114.090 et seq. Mr. Dompier was custodian of each of the accounts and maintained complete authority over management of the accounts.

In 1999, Mr. Dompier began investing in real estate. He purchased various pieces of real property as investments owned in Mr. Dompier’s and his wife’s name. Mr. Dompier’s investment plan entailed his managing the properties for a fee. The income produced by the properties would cover the expenses associated with the properties. As the values of the properties increased, Mr. Dompier planned to sell the properties. Mr. Dompier’s plan did not work out as expected, and soon expenses began to exceed the income associated with the real estate properties. In 2000, Mr. Dompier began experiencing financial difficulties and began withdrawing funds to which he was not entitled from the custodial accounts and deposited the funds into his own personal accounts, using some of the funds for his own personal use, thereby unlawfully converting the funds. (Mr. Dompier specifically does not admit this conduct but does admit that there is a substantial likelihood the WSBA could prove it by a clear preponderance of the evidence.) By September 2003, all of the accounts were depleted of all funds and subsequently closed. Despite the use of the converted funds, Mr. Dompier continued to experience financial difficulties.

In March 2004, Mr. Dompier wrote a letter to his brothers, nieces, and nephews acknowledging that he had used the money in the custodial accounts. He apologized and indicated that he would pay the money back, which totaled approximately $47,731. In July 2004, Mr. Dompier and his wife filed personal bankruptcy. Mr. Dompier’s brothers were listed as creditors to whom Mr. Dompier owed money. These debts were for the funds Mr. Dompier took from the custodial accounts. As part of his personal bankruptcy, Mr. Dompier filed reaffirmation agreements with his brothers that reaffirmed the debt Mr. Dompier owed for the funds he withdrew from the accounts in a total amount of $48,331. In November 2004, a final decree was filed and Mr. Dompier’s bankruptcy case was closed. Mr. Dompier has not made any payments or reimbursed his brothers or his nieces and nephews for the funds he took from the custodial accounts.

In July 2006, the Association mailed the grievance to Mr. Dompier and requested that he submit a written response within two weeks. In August 2007, Mr. Dompier filed a response to the grievance stating that he had invested the funds in rental real estate on behalf of the beneficiaries, but that the real estate had been lost to foreclosure. Mr. Dompier’s response was not complete or truthful in that his real estate investments were made in his and his wife’s name, not in the name of the trust beneficiaries, and Mr. Dompier did not invest the funds withdrawn from the custodial accounts in rental real estate.

Mr. Dompier’s conduct violated RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer from violating a duty or sanction imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct in connection with a disciplinary matter (here ELC 5.3(e)); and RPC 8.4(i), prohibiting a lawyer from committing any act involving moral turpitude, or corruption, or any other act which reflects disregard for the rule of law, whether the same be committed in the course of his or her conduct as a lawyer, or otherwise.

Debra J. Slater represented the Bar Association. Mr. Dompier represented himself.

Disbarred

Jeffrey L. Finney (WSBA No. 15618, admitted 1986), of Kennewick, was disbarred, effective May 14, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following approval of a stipulation. This discipline is based on conduct involving soliciting and accepting bribes.

Mr. Finney was employed as a defense attorney practicing for the City of Kennewick, which operated a recreation program (Home Base) that provided a place for teens to meet and enjoy recreational activities. The City of Kennewick and the city attorney’s office authorized persons charged with misdemeanor criminal offenses and civil infractions to make donations to Home Base to have their cases dismissed or their charges significantly reduced. One of the assistant prosecutors for the City of Kennewick (Mr. X), in his official capacity, solicited defendants who had charges pending against them to donate money to the Home Base program. Mr. X negotiated many cases that were favorable to defendants in return for donations to Home Base.

From approximately January 1, 2005, until approximately March 1, 2006, Mr. Finney and Mr. X conspired to solicit money from Mr. Finney’s clients for donations to Home Base, which they then split between them for their own use. On multiple occasions, Mr. Finney told his clients that their criminal charges would be reduced or dismissed if they gave him funds to be donated to Home Base, and the clients gave him funds for donation to Home Base. He didn’t tell his clients that some or all of the funds would be kept by Mr. X or by him for his own use. Mr. Finney gave money received from his clients to Mr. X in transactions valued at more than $5,000, in order to influence Mr. X as a city prosecutor to render favorable dispositions of his clients’ cases and to obtain money for Mr. X and himself. Over $160,000 of the donation money that should have gone to Home Base did not go into the Home Base account. The amount taken by Mr. Finney for his own use has not yet been judicially determined, but Mr. Finney estimates that it approximates $20,000.

On December 12, 2006, Mr. Finney was charged by indictment with violating several federal statutes in connection with the facts set forth above. On September 11, 2007, Mr. Finney pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. §666(a)(2) (offering a bribe), one count of the indictment mentioned above. This offense is a felony.

Mr. Finney’s conduct violated RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; and RPC 8.4(i), prohibiting a lawyer from committing any act involving moral turpitude, or corruption, or other act which reflects disregard for the rule of the law.

Joanne S. Abelson represented the Bar Association. James E. Egan represented Mr. Finney.

Suspended

Gurjit S. Pandher (WSBA No. 28242, admitted 1998), of Everett, was suspended for 60 days, effective May 14, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following approval of a stipulation. This discipline is based on conduct involving submitting forged documents to an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) counselor in violation of his probation.

In May 2005, Mr. Pandher was charged in Snohomish County District Court with driving under the influence. Mr. Pandher pleaded guilty to the charge in November 2005 and was sentenced to 30 days in jail, a fine, and probation with conditions, including a requirement that he be given drug/alcohol evaluation and that he follow the recommended course of action. After evaluation, Mr. Pandher was required to continue substance-abuse counseling and attend two AA meetings per week while on the program. Mr. Pandher was required to provide his substance-abuse counselor proof of his attendance at the AA meetings.

In March 2006, Mr. Pandher gave his counselor AA attendance slips, some of which appeared to have forged signatures. The counselor questioned Mr. Pandher about the dubious signatures, and he admitted to her that they were not genuine and that he had not attended the AA meetings corresponding to the questioned signatures. The counselor terminated Mr. Pandher from the program and reported the matter to the probation department. Mr. Pandher sought treatment at another facility.

In May 2006, Mr. Pandher appeared in court and admitted that he forged some of the signatures on his AA attendance slips. Mr. Pandher told the court that he had missed some of the AA meetings because he had been trying to start up his own business and spent most weekends traveling to California, where his wife was finishing work on a graduate degree. The judge told Mr. Pandher that his conduct could impact his license to practice law. He placed Mr. Pandher on active probation and ordered him to stay in treatment. The prosecuting attorney informed the Association about Mr. Pandher’s conduct, but did not charge him in connection with the forged AA slips. Mr. Pandher successfully completed his treatment program.

Mr. Pandher’s conduct violated RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting an attorney from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

Natalea Skvir represented the Bar Association. Mr. Pandher represented himself.

Suspended

Brian J. Sunderland (WSBA No. 22665, admitted 1993), of Clackamas, Oregon, was suspended for one year, effective May 21, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline in accordance with an order of the Oregon Supreme Court following approval of a stipulation. This discipline is based on conduct in several matters and includes engaging in dishonest conduct and conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, assisting a client in fraudulent conduct, disregarding an order of the court, engaging in improper ex parte communication with the court, violating the rules on vicarious responsibility for another lawyer’s conduct, failing to maintain clients ‘funds in trust, and failing to maintain complete and accurate records of clients’ funds. For more information, see the December 2007 Oregon State Bar Bulletin, available at www.osbar.org.

Mr. Sunderland’s conduct violated Oregon DR 1-102(A)(3), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; Oregon DR 1-102(A)(4) (and RPC 8.4(a)(4)), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; Oregon DR 7-102(A)(7), prohibiting a lawyer from assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent; Oregon DR 7-106(A), prohibiting a lawyer from disregarding or advising a client to disregard a standing rule of a tribunal or a ruling of a tribunal made in the course of a proceeding; Oregon DR 7-110(B), prohibiting a lawyer in an adversary proceeding from communicating as to the merits of the cause with a judge or an official before whom the proceeding is pending except under certain exceptions; Oregon DR 9-101(A), requiring all funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law firm be deposited and maintained in one or more identifiable trust accounts in the state in which the law office is situated; Oregon DR 9-101(C)(3), requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to the client regarding them; and Oregon RPC 1.15-1(a), requiring a lawyer to hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer’s possession separate from the lawyer’s own property; Oregon RPC 1.15-1(c), requiring a lawyer to deposit into a lawyer trust account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses incurred; and Oregon RPC 5.1, making a lawyer responsible for another lawyer’s violation of the ethics rules if the lawyer orders or ratifies the conduct involved, or the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated.

Felice P. Congalton represented the Bar Association. Mr. Sunderland represented himself.

Reprimanded

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.

Admonished

Harold M. Turner (WSBA No. 33341, admitted 2003), of Auburn, was ordered to receive an admonition on January 9, 2008, by order of a Review Committee of the Disciplinary Board. This discipline was based on conduct involving failure to file a 2006 trust account declaration.

In May 2006, Mr. Turner paid his WSBA license fees, but failed to file the required trust account declaration. In June 2006, the WSBA auditor sent him a letter reminding him of this obligation and provided a second copy of the form. In October 2006, the chief disciplinary counsel sent him a letter with another blank trust account form. In January 2007, a staff member from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) called Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner asked the staff member to send another copy of the declaration form to a new address; the ODC staff person complied with that request.

In March 2007, Mr. Turner was notified, at both addresses, that a grievance had been opened against him based on his failure to file a trust account declaration. Mr. Turner was asked to provide a written response within two weeks. He did not respond. In May 2007, ODC sent a second letter asking him to respond to the grievance. On that same day, Mr. Turner notified the WSBA that he had a new address. In August, ODC sent a third letter asking for a response to the grievance. This letter was sent to his third address. Mr. Turner did not respond.

Mr. Turner’s conduct violated RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer from violating a duty or sanction imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct in connection with a disciplinary matter.

Natalea Skvir represented the Bar Association. Mr. Turner did not appear either in person or through counsel.