“Voluminous And Well Documented”

The Washington State Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney

In this attorney discipline proceeding, Thi Anh Huynh was charged with numerous counts of misconduct, including false representation, theft, and other misconduct involving dishonesty. The hearing officer recommended disbarment, and the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) Disciplinary Board (Board) unanimously affirmed. Huynh challenges the disbarment recommendation, arguing a number of the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law lack adequate support and his due process rights were violated. Huynh asks this court to reverse the Board’s decision and reject the disbarment recommendation. We adopt the Board’s recommendation and disbar Huynh. The hearing officer’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, the conclusions of law are supported by those findings, and Huynh waived his right to raise a statutory defense to theft. On the record as a whole, Huynh misappropriated client and investor funds, attempted to conceal the thefts, and engaged in other intentional conduct involving dishonesty; thus, disbarment is a proportionate sanction.

The allegations related to three transactions; Respondent was admitted in 2006 and had no prior discipline.

He made a number of challenges to the findings of fact

In sum, all of Huynh’s challenges to the findings of fact fail. Some of his challenges are unsupported by argument and therefore those findings of fact are verities on appeal. Marshall, 160 Wn.2d at 330. Those findings that are actually challenged with argument are nevertheless supported by substantial evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of their accuracy.

And the same conclusion on the rules violated

In sum, all of Huynh’s challenges to the conclusions of law fail because he has not shown that the challenges are unsupported by the findings of fact. Behrman, 165 Wn.2d at 422 (citing Marshall, 160 Wn.2d at 330). We therefore uphold all of the hearing officer’s conclusions of law.

Defense to theft charges

Huynh was charged with violating RPC 8.4(b) by committing theft as defined by RCW 9A.56.020 in counts 3, 6, and 11, which correspond with the hearing officer’s conclusions in COL 73 and 78. DP at 2-3, 19-20. RCW 9A.56.020(2)(a) sets out a statutory defense to theft, where “[t]he property or service was appropriated openly and avowedly under a claim of title made in good faith, even though the claim be untenable.”

Huynh raises for the first time on appeal that he was deprived of the opportunity to raise a defense to theft under this statute.

The failure to raise this issue below waived the contention.

Sanction

Huynh violated numerous rules against mishandling client funds and misrepresenting those actions. The evidence against Huynh is voluminous and well documented, and he demonstrates no mitigating factors for his behavior. Consequently, this is a case where the most serious disciplinary sanction is not only called for but, frankly, demanded by the record. Therefore, we affirm the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, reject Huynh’s due process claims, and adopt the Board’s recommendation to disbar Huynh.

(Mike Frisch)