| Description: |
Michael L. Jacob (WSBA No. 11622, admitted 1981), of Bainbridge Island, was suspended for 18 months following a stipulation approved by order of the Supreme Court dated September 1, 2000. The discipline is based upon his lack of diligence in several family law matters.
Matter 1: In April 1995, Mr. Jacob agreed to represent the father in a child-support modification. Mr. Jacob told the client that his $697 monthly payment was clearly excessive, and that the modification would be straightforward.
On July 27, 1995, Mr. Jacob filed the client’s petition for support modification. Although Mr. Jacob and the client had discussed filing a motion for temporary orders, Mr. Jacob did not file those pleadings. The parties were unable to reach agreement, so Mr. Jacob obtained a June 21, 1996 trial date. Mr. Jacob failed to serve notice of this trial date on opposing counsel. When Mr. Jacob discovered that opposing counsel was unaware of the trial date, he agreed to strike that date. Opposing counsel wrote to Mr. Jacob several times between July 1996 and January 1997, however, Mr. Jacob did not respond. Consequently, opposing counsel notified Mr. Jacob that he would object to any reduced child-support amount becoming effective retroactively.
In August 1996, the client filed a grievance with the WSBA stating that his case was still active after 16 months, and that Mr. Jacob would not return his calls. Mr. Jacob twice told his client that the trial would occur within a few weeks, but this did not happen. Between April and November 1997, several trial dates were set and cancelled. In April and July 1997, opposing counsel filed motions to dismiss the petition. Mr. Jacob agreed to pay opposing counsel $600 as compensation for these motions. As of the date of the stipulation, Mr. Jacob had paid only $200 of this amount. On November 6, 1997, the client retained substituted counsel. On November 17, 1997, the court entered an agreed order of child support, reducing the client’s payment to $550 per month effective December 1, 1997.
Matter 2: In September 1994, Mr. Jacob agreed to represent the husband in a marriage dissolution matter. Mr. Jacob filed the petition for dissolution on March 6, 1995. On March 28, 1995, opposing counsel wrote Mr. Jacob a letter about the division of the assets and liabilities in the case. On May 5, 1995, opposing counsel contacted Mr. Jacob by phone, asking why he had not received an answer to his letter. Mr. Jacob promised to respond to the letter, but did not do so.
On June 23, 1995, opposing counsel sent Mr. Jacob a letter requesting that his client vacate the condominium shared by the clients. Mr. Jacob’s client did leave the condominium, but allegedly took various items of community and separate property. Opposing counsel wrote Mr. Jacob three letters requesting that his client return the property. Mr. Jacob did not respond to any of these letters. On June 27, 1995, opposing counsel served Mr. Jacob with interrogatories and requests for production. Mr. Jacob did not provide the answers or requested documents by the due date. Opposing counsel filed a motion to compel answers to the interrogatories, award possession of the condo, require the return of the property, and for a restraining order and terms. Mr. Jacob did not inform his client of the motion, did not file a response to the motion, and did not appear at the hearing. The court ordered the client to return the property, and answer the interrogatories and requests for production by August 17; it awarded possession of the condo to the wife, awarded opposing counsel $750 in fees, and continued the hearing until August 18. Mr. Jacob did not submit answers to the interrogatories or requests for production by the court’s deadline, and did not attend the hearing or tell his client about the hearing.
On August 18, the court found the client in contempt, provided that he could purge the contempt finding by providing answers to the interrogatories by August 24, 1995, continued the hearing to August 25, and assessed an additional $250 in terms. Mr. Jacob sent the client the interrogatories for the first time in mid-August. He did not tell the client about the court orders, but paid the $1,000 imposed by the court himself. Mr. Jacob did submit interrogatory answers to opposing counsel, but opposing counsel notified Mr. Jacob that he believed the answers were inadequate and filed a motion for an order to show cause regarding the contempt judgment.
Mr. Jacob and his client appeared in court for the hearing on November 17, 1995. The court ordered that the client provide additional information, continued the hearing, and awarded an additional $600 in attorney’s fees. Mr. Jacob told his client that he would pay one-half of the awarded fees, but he has not done so. Following a conference, the parties reached agreement. The court entered the decree of dissolution on March 29, 1996. Mr. Jacob did not provide a copy of the decree to his client.
Matter 3: On February 28, 1995, Mr. Jacob agreed to represent the husband in a marriage dissolution matter. Although the client believed that Mr. Jacob would file the petition for dissolution immediately, he did not file it until October 29, 1996. The client also thought that Mr. Jacob would seek temporary orders, but he did not do so.
On December 4, 1996, opposing counsel sent requests for interrogatories and production to Mr. Jacob, but he did not respond. Mr. Jacob also failed to attend or file pleadings responding to opposing counsel’s temporary orders hearing. At that hearing, the court required Mr. Jacob’s client to pay $753 per month in child support, restricted his residential time with his children, and entered a $1,500 judgment against the client for the wife’s attorney’s fees. Mr. Jacob did not inform his client of this court order.
On April 10, 1997, opposing counsel filed a motion requesting that the court enter an order compelling answers to his discovery requests. In response, Mr. Jacob filed a notice of withdrawal. The court entered an order compelling discovery and requiring Mr. Jacob’s client to pay an additional $350 in terms.
Matter 4: On May 6, 1996, Mr. Jacob agreed to represent the wife in a marriage dissolution action. Mr. Jacob prepared the petition for dissolution and arranged for the husband to be served in California. On June 19, 1996, the client notified Mr. Jacob that she had retained other counsel. In October 1996, the client requested a refund of the $1,690 fee she had paid. On May 8, 1997, Mr. Jacob returned $500 to the client, stating that this was one-third of her refund. He promised to make two additional monthly payments, but had not done so by the date of the stipulation.
Matter 5: On November 7, 1996, Mr. Jacob agreed to represent the father in a hearing, scheduled for that same day, regarding $25,000 in back-due child support. The client paid Mr. Jacob $1,500. Mr. Jacob and opposing counsel agreed to continue the hearing in exchange for a $3,963 payment from Mr. Jacob’s client. After reviewing information from opposing counsel, Mr. Jacob agreed that his client owed $10,975.19 in back child support. Based on this conclusion, Mr. Jacob decided not to file a response for the hearing. Mr. Jacob did not notify his client of his agreement regarding the amount or his decision not to respond. At the December 13, 1996 hearing, with Mr. Jacob’s agreement, the court entered a $8,975.19 judgment against the client. Approximately 10 days later, the client retained new counsel.
Matter 6: On September 12, 1996, Mr. Jacob agreed to represent a husband and wife in two matters, a stepparent adoption and a residential placement modification. The clients paid Mr. Jacob a total of $2,350 for both matters. Initially, Mr. Jacob told the clients that both matters should be completed by the end of the 1996-1997 school year.
On May 27, 1997, the client called the court and discovered that Mr. Jacob had not yet filed the petitions with the court. Although Mr. Jacob promised to file both petitions right away, he did not. On July 14, 1997, the clients discharged Mr. Jacob and requested a refund. Mr. Jacob did not respond to this request. On February 6, 1998, the clients obtained a $2,300 small-claims judgment against Mr. Jacob. As of the date of the stipulation, Mr. Jacob had not paid the judgment.
Matter 7: On September 28, 1995, Mr. Jacob agreed to represent a husband in a child-support collection case. Although the client was subject to a child-support order, he believed he was not the child’s father, and requested that Mr. Jacob stop the collection. The client paid Mr. Jacob $1,500.
In either October or November 1995, the Office of Support Enforcement notified the client that he was released from his child-support obligation. In May 1997, the client obtained a credit report verifying that he did not owe child support and that the past-due amounts had been removed. Mr. Jacob advised the client to take no further action. In August or September 1998, the client began receiving notices from the Hawaii OSE regarding back-due child support. In October 1998, after several attempts to speak with Mr. Jacob, the client requested his file and a refund of his fees. Mr. Jacob returned the client’s file in January 1999, but as of the stipulation date, had not returned the fees.
Matter 8: On June 17, 1998, Mr. Jacob received the Supreme Court order suspending his license to practice law in Washington for failing to pay the required WSBA dues. On July 9, 1998, Mr. Jacob sent a bankruptcy questionnaire to a client and signed the attached letter as Michael Jacob, Attorney at Law. Mr. Jacob met with this client, executed a fee agreement, and accepted a $595 fee. Later, the client found that Mr. Jacob’s telephone was disconnected and that the receptionist at the office did not know how to locate Mr. Jacob. The client went to the bankruptcy court and learned that Mr. Jacob had not filed his petition. As of the stipulation date, Mr. Jacob had not returned the client’s money.
Mr. Jacob’s conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent clients; 3.2, requiring lawyers to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their cases; 1.5, requiring lawyers to charge a reasonable fee for their services; 1.15, requiring lawyers to promptly deliver client funds to clients upon request; and 1.2, requiring lawyers to abide by a client’s decisions regarding the scope of representation.
Marsha Matsumoto represented the Bar Association. Mr. Jacob represented himself.
|