| Description: |
Richard Llewelyn Jones (WSBA No. 12904, admitted 1982), of Bellevue, received a reprimand based on a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board on March 29, 2001. The discipline is based upon his filing a frivolous claim and failing to promptly comply with lawful discovery requests in 1996. (Note: Richard L. Jones is to be distinguished from Richard A. Jones of Seattle; Richard B. Jones of Port Orchard; and Richard F. Jones of Olympia.)
In 1996, Mr. Jones represented a client in a civil lawsuit. The suit alleged that the client had stolen an exotic sports car from the plaintiff. The court set trial for April 29, 1996. At the client’s request, Mr. Jones asked that his client’s deposition be postponed until April 1. After business hours on March 29, the client notified Mr. Jones that he had been injured and could not appear for the deposition. Mr. Jones did not notify opposing counsel until counsel appeared for the deposition, and did not bring any of the subpoenaed documents.
On April 10, 1996, opposing counsel obtained a court order compelling the client to make himself available for deposition immediately. Opposing counsel then rescheduled the deposition for April 15. The client appeared for the deposition and testified that a lawyer in Oregon had additional documents. Opposing counsel did not receive these additional documents until April 25. During the deposition, Mr. Jones instructed his client not to answer several questions and left the room to confer with his client while a question was pending, in violation of Civil Rules 30 (h)(3) and 30 (h)(5).
On April 15, 1996, at the client’s request, Mr. Jones filed an answer, counterclaim and third-party complaint naming opposing counsel and his wife. The third-party complaint alleged abuse of process and Consumer Protection Act violations. The court dismissed the complaint and sanctioned Mr. Jones and the client for filing frivolous claims and failing to comply with discovery rules. Mr. Jones appealed the sanctions. The court of appeals affirmed the sanctions and further sanctioned him for filing a frivolous appeal.
Mr. Jones’ conduct violated RPCs 3.1, prohibiting lawyers from asserting frivolous claims; 3.4(a), prohibiting obstructing another party’s access to evidence; 3.4(d), requiring lawyers to make reasonably diligent efforts to comply with legally proper discovery requests; and 4.4, prohibiting using means with no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or burden a third party.
Linda Eide represented the Bar Association. Kurt M. Bulmer represented Mr. Jones.
|