Attorney Sanctioned For Conflicts, Home Visit To Successor Counsel
The Washington State Supreme Court has imposed a two-year suspension of an attorney for conflicts of interest and related violations in his creation and management of an elderly client’s estate.
As to conflicts
The hearing officer held that Hall violated [conflicts] RPCs because he named himself as alternate trustee and health care representative, and gave himself power of attorney without fully explaining to the Keens the legal effects of these roles, including the ways in which these roles could conflict with his own interests and, in turn, adversely afiect their interests…
Being in control of Margaret’s assets was in Hall’s personal interest and thus there was a significant risk that his representation of the Keens could be limited by this interest. Further, there is substantial evidence that Hall did not obtain informed consent to his acquiring a pecuniary interest in Margaret’s estate in the form of an $8,000 per year trustee’s fee. Hall argues that the waiver provisions in his engagement letter and the will and Trust were sufficient to serve as informed consent. These waiver provisions, however, only purportedly waive the conflict created in Hall being able to hire himself for legal work for the Trust and/or the estate. They do not explain whether Hall was representing the Keens or himself in appointing himself to these roles, as is required by RPC 1.8(a)(3). There was also substantial evidence that Margaret had difficulty even reading the documents she signed and that Hall failed to read them out loud, word for word. Finally, informed consent also requires “adequate information and explanation about … reasonably available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct.” RPC 1.0( e). Here, expert witness Barbara Isenl10ur testified at the hearing that professional trust agencies are a much better option than attorneys because they are more knowledgeable and cheaper. There is no indication that Hall informed the Keens, in writing or otherwise, of such a reasonable alternative to appointing himself as future trustee.
The court affirmed findings that the attorney charged an excessive fee and failed to return original documents.
Finally, the attorney’s visit to successor counsel (retained to revise the docum,ents he drew up) was prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Here’s the story
On May 25, 2010, Hall made an unannounced evening visit to [attorney] Clausen’s residence·—which also served as her place of business-where Clausen was with her husband and infant daughter. In a loud, angry voice, Hall called Clausen an idiot and told her that she had committed malpractice, that she was in “big trouble” and needed to “fix the problem,” and that she was going to get disbarred. Verbatim Tr. of Proceedings (VTP) at 198. Clausen threatened to call the police, and Hall finally backed off, mentioning that Clausen “had a lot to lose … a new baby and a young family and a big house” and that if he went down, she would go down. VTP at 200. Hall then sent a letter to Clausen containing random references to Communist Russia and Nazi Germany and threatening to file a lawsuit against her. Hall was removed as trustee of the Trust on May 28, 2010, but he still refused to return the original documents and continued to accuse Clausen of malpractice.
This violated the rule
…it is certainly against practice norms to show up unannounced at another attorney’s home and threaten her and her family to withdraw a grievance she did not file. We affirm as to this count.
(Mike Frisch)