| Description: |
Lynnwood lawyer John P. World (WSBA No. 6324, admitted 1975) has been ordered disbarred by order of the Supreme Court effective October 29, 1997, entered after a public disciplinary hearing and review by the Disciplinary Board. The discipline is based upon his neglect of matters relating to the possible sale of his clients’ business, misrepresentations to the clients about its status, and violation of a prior disciplinary order.
In December 1989, two friends and coworkers of World left their common employer and started their own company. In May 1991, because their new business was not doing well and they faced possible bankruptcy, the two decided to pursue the sale of their company to a company in Boston, Massachusetts, that had expressed significant interest in purchasing it. The two met with executives from the Boston company and realized that they needed help negotiating and documenting the sale.
At a meeting of the new company’s Board, at which World was present, the Board considered which of two lawyers to retain to represent them, World or another lawyer. Based on the two co-founders’ great confidence in World’s ability and integrity because of their long association with him, the Board agreed to retain World. World then entered into a lawyer-client relationship with the two co-founders and the company regarding the transaction.
After that Board meeting, World had only one conversation with the executives of the Boston company. Thereafter, World did nothing to further the sale, and he never spoke to anyone from the Boston company again. However, World had many conversations, on an almost weekly basis, with the company’s co-founders regarding the transaction. In these conversations, World consistently misrepresented his efforts, the progress of the transaction and its chances of going forward. He also instructed the two to have no direct contact with the Boston company.
According to the hearing officer’s findings, World "engage[d] in a deceptive charade regarding the progress of the deal which is difficult to exaggerate," leading the two co-founders to believe that the sale of their company was imminent, and principally contingent on the Boston company executives’ meeting with the two and seeing their company’s books and operations. The hearing officer also found that World "engaged in multiple and elaborate lies as to why executives of the Boston company failed to make meetings with [the two] that he had told them would occur."
In October 1991, the two co-founders became suspicious about the numerous failed meetings. World then engaged in another pattern of deceit to contain his scheme that appeared to be unraveling. After another week, World told the two that they should look for another buyer. A few days after this, the two called the Boston company to find out what had gone wrong and discovered that World had had no contact with them other than the one telephone call in July 1991, and that they were no longer interested in pursuing the purchase of the company. When they confronted World about this, he engaged in yet another deceit about what had happened.
During the course of this deceitful conduct, World was made aware of the precarious financial state of the company and its two co-founders, and he was aware of the harm that would be caused to them all if the transaction failed to occur. World did not admit his deceit to the two up to the date of the hearing.
At the time World entered into this lawyer-client relationship, he was under the terms of a previous disciplinary order that required him to obtain a supervising lawyer before he engaged in the private practice of law outside of the company for which he worked. World did not obtain a supervising lawyer to oversee his work on this matter.
World’s conduct in knowingly failing to pursue the sale of the company as instructed by his clients violated RPC 1.2(a) (concerning his obligation to abide by the decisions of his client regarding the objectives of the representation), RPC 1.3 (requiring diligence), and RPC 1.4 (requiring adequate communication with clients), and subjects him to discipline pursuant to RLD 1.1(i) and (p). His knowing pattern of deceit and misrepresentation regarding the progress of the sale violated RPC 8.4(c) (prohibiting conduct that is dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful or involves misrepresentation), and subjects him to discipline pursuant to RLD 1.1(a), (i) and (p). His conduct in knowingly resuming the private practice of law by agreeing to represent these clients without obtaining a supervising attorney, in violation of the terms of his previous disciplinary order, subjects him to discipline pursuant to RLD 1.1(m) and (p).
The hearing officer was Andrew K. Dolan of Seattle. World represented himself. The Bar Association was represented by Disciplinary Counsel Jean Kelley McElroy.
|