| Description: |
William I. Freeman (WSBA No. 17586, admitted 1988), of Vancouver, has been disbarred by order of the Supreme Court effective June 20, 2001, following a default hearing. The discipline is based upon his failing to diligently represent and adequately communicate with multiple clients, allowing a nonlawyer to hide assets in his trust account and splitting fees with this nonlawyer, charging unreasonable fees, and failing to cooperate with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Matter 1: In July 1994, a husband and wife retained Mr. Freeman to represent them in a real estate transaction. On October 5, 1995, the arbitrator entered a $13,089.08 award against the clients. The clients directed Mr. Freeman to file a request for trial de novo. Mr. Freeman failed to file this notice within the 20-day deadline; consequently, the award became final. Mr. Freeman agreed to pay the client’s debt over time; however, the terms of the agreement were not fair to the clients. Mr. Freeman did not explain the conflict of interest or suggest that his clients obtain independent legal advice. Mr. Freeman breached the agreement and the clients paid the remaining debt.
Matter 2: In the 1990s, Ms. N operated a company that dispensed hearing aids. Ms. N also assisted clients with filling out and filing disability claims with the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I). Ms. N charged a contingent fee for this assistance and also paid referral fees for referrals of clients with hearing loss. RCW 51.48.280 prohibits kickbacks, bribes and certain representation fees relating to L&I disability claims, including hearing-loss claims. L&I investigated Ms. N for violating RCW 51.48.280, and she retained Mr. Freeman to represent her. During the investigation, Ms. N and Mr. Freeman agreed that Ms. N could deposit her client’s contingent fee into Mr. Freeman’s trust account to conceal that she was continuing to take these payments.
Between 1998 and 2000, Mr. Freeman and Ms. N engaged in a business venture to represent individuals with hearing loss. Ms. N advertised for clients and then referred them to Mr. Freeman. Mr. Freeman then charged the clients contingent fees between eight and 12 percent. Ms. N or her employees actually performed the work on these cases. Mr. Freeman did not provide any legal services to these clients.
Matter 3: In 1999, Mr. Freeman represented a criminal defendant arrested for violating sentencing terms and conditions. The prosecutor in the case told Mr. Freeman that he would not agree to release the client from custody. After this conversation, Mr. Freeman obtained the client’s release through an ex parte order. Mr. Freeman did not tell the judge that the prosecutor objected to the release. When the prosecutor learned of the release, the court scheduled a hearing. Neither Mr. Freeman nor his client appeared at the hearing. The court ordered a warrant for the client’s arrest and released the bail. The prosecutor charged the client with jumping bail. The client was arrested and later pleaded guilty to this charge.
Matter 4: In 1999, Mr. Freeman represented a client charged with theft. After arranging for interviews with two theft victims, Mr. Freeman fell asleep during his questioning. He also fell asleep during the prosecutor’s interview with the client’s alibi witness.
Matter 5: In December 1999, Mr. Freeman represented a client charged with driving without a valid driver’s license. The client required a state-subsidized interpreter. Mr. Freeman did not appear for the trial setting conference, so the date was continued. The client and the interpreter both appeared. Neither Mr. Freeman nor the client appeared for the continued conference, and the court ordered a warrant for the client’s arrest.
Matter 6: In early 2000, Mr. Freeman represented a client charged with forgery. The court agreed to supervised release with several conditions. Mr. Freeman obtained his client’s signature on the release order without informing him of the conditions, and subsequently the client violated the conditions. Mr. Freeman did not appear for the client’s May 16, 2000 trial, nor did he provide any explanation to the court for his absence. On May 24, 2000, Mr. Freeman was personally served with the prosecutor’s motion for sanctions and an order to show cause, requiring his appearance, but Mr. Freeman did not appear. The court found him in contempt for failing to appear at the client’s trial.
Matter 7: In 2000, Mr. Freeman represented a client in a domestic-violence and stalking case. The prosecutor identified two critical witnesses for the case, and explained that they could be charged with obstructing a public servant if they failed to cooperate. Mr. Freeman agreed to represent the witnesses in a claim against the police while the domestic violence case was pending. Mr. Freeman did not explain the potential conflict of interest to the three clients and did not obtain a written waiver of the conflict. Mr. Freeman fell asleep during the prosecutor’s interview of the critical witnesses.
Matter 8: In 2000, Mr. Freeman represented a criminal defendant. Mr. Freeman appeared late for the first suppression hearing, submitted no pleadings or documents, and did not inform his client that he was required to attend the hearing. The court sanctioned Mr. Freeman $400, allowed him until the next day to file pleadings, and rescheduled the suppression hearing. Prior to the date of the hearing, the client was arrested on new drug charges, so the hearing was continued again. Mr. Freeman did not attend the second suppression hearing and the court sanctioned him an additional $1,000. The client was still in custody and was brought from the jail to attend the hearing. The court appointed a new lawyer to represent the client.
Matter 9: In 2000, Mr. Freeman represented a defendant charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance. After negotiating a plea agreement with the prosecutor, neither Mr. Freeman nor his client attended the hearing to enter the agreement with the court. Mr. Freeman also failed to appear for the client’s trial date.
Matter 10: In 2000, Mr. Freeman represented a criminal defendant. Mr. Freeman failed to appear for the client’s trial-readiness conference. Mr. Freeman also failed to appear at a later readiness hearing. The client appeared at this hearing and told the court that he could not reach Mr. Freeman.
Matter 11: In 2000, Mr. Freeman represented a criminal defendant. Neither Mr. Freeman nor his client appeared at the May 17, 2000 pretrial conference. The court authorized issuance of a bench warrant. The client contacted the prosecutor, who allowed the client to reschedule the conference. The client appeared at the rescheduled conference without Mr. Freeman, and the court appointed another lawyer to represent the client.
Matter 12: In 2000, Mr. Freeman agreed to represent a criminal defendant. Mr. Freeman did not appear at a required hearing, and the court issued a bench warrant for the client’s arrest. The prosecutor served Mr. Freeman with a motion for sanctions and a show-cause order. Mr. Freeman did not appear and the court found him in contempt.
Matter 13: Mr. Freeman failed to respond to the Bar Association’s written requests for information. He also failed to appear for his deposition after personal service of the subpoena. He did appear at a rescheduled deposition, but failed to bring the requested client files.
Mr. Freeman’s conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4, requiring lawyers to promptly respond to clients’ reasonable requests for information regarding the status of their matters; 3.3(f), requiring that, in ex parte proceedings, lawyers inform the tribunal of all relevant facts known to the lawyer that should be disclosed to permit the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse; 8.4(d), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; 1.2(d), prohibiting lawyers from counseling or assisting clients in criminal or fraudulent conduct; 5.4, prohibiting lawyers from entering fee-splitting arrangements with nonlawyers; 7.2(c), prohibiting lawyers from giving anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services; and 8.4(b), prohibiting committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer.
Jonathan Burke represented the Bar Association. Mr. Freeman represented himself. The hearing officer was Bert Markovich.
|