| Description: |
Grosvenor Anschell (WSBA No. 9756, admitted 1954), of Bellevue, has been suspended for two years, effective October 30, 2000, by order of the Supreme Court, following a hearing. For more information, please see the Supreme Court opinion.
Matter 1: In October 1992, a husband and wife paid Mr. Anschell $430 to submit citizenship applications for them and their children to become naturalized citizens of the United States. Both parents are Egyptian citizens and had been permanent residents of the United States for several years; the children are Canadian citizens. The parents completed the naturalization applications on October 27, 1992.
Between this date and September 1994, the clients periodically contacted Mr. Anschell about the status of their case. He told them that the applications had been filed, and that they should not worry. In a September 1, 1994 declaration, Mr. Anschell indicated that he filed the applications, but in fact, the applications were not filed. Failure to file delayed the client’s case by over two and a half years. The clients filed a legal malpractice suit and obtained a $68,483.63 default judgment against Mr. Anschell.
Matter 2: On October 5, 1994, a client retained Mr. Anschell to apply for a change of visa status for herself and her daughter. The client needed to change her status from temporary professional worker to visitor/tourist while she looked for employment. Her status was set to expire on October 10, 1994; the daughter wanted to become a permanent resident.
Mr. Anschell did not file the daughter’s change-of-status application, nor did he file the mother’s change-of-status form until October 25, 1994, after her legal status had expired. Additionally, Mr. Anschell did not comply with an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) order to file the client’s form I-797 by April 26, 1995. Because of these delays, the INS denied the client’s application due to abandonment. The INS decision indicated that the client had the option to file a motion to re-open within 30 days or submit a new application and fee. Mr. Anschell did not inform the client of the order or her options.
On April 8, 1995, the client found new employment, and again retained Mr. Anschell to change her status back from visitor/tourist to temporary professional worker. She was not aware of the earlier loss of her legal status.
In late 1995 and early 1996, Mr. Anschell did not respond to his client’s questions regarding her case. In February 1996, the client’s employer contacted Mr. Anschell regarding the client’s status; however, Mr. Anschell did not reply.
In March 1996, the client retained new counsel, and requested that Mr. Anschell forward all papers relating to her case to her new counsel. Mr. Anschell did not respond to this request. The INS denied the client and daughter’s change-of-status applications because they were out of legal status. As a result, the client and her daughter had to return to England for approximately three weeks and reapply from there to legally re-enter the United States.
Matter 3: On April 7, 1995, Mr. Anschell agreed to represent the wife of an American citizen in her application for permanent resident status. The clients also asked Mr. Anschell to obtain a passport for the wife’s daughter, who had been living in Germany. In April 1995, the clients completed the forms, and provided Mr. Anschell with the documentation and required fees.
In October 1995, the clients requested proof that Mr. Anschell had filed the wife’s application. Mr. Anschell promised to fax the documents, but never did. The clients then sent a certified letter giving Mr. Anschell until December 1, 1995 to either send proof that he had filed the application, or return the clients’ money and INS packet. Mr. Anschell did not respond.
Mr. Anschell did not file the clients’ application, and lost the wife and daughter’s files. At the time of the hearing, he had not located the daughter’s original German passport or the wife’s original medical papers.
Matter 4: Mr. Anschell failed to cooperate with the investigations of these matters. He failed to return phone calls and answer written requests for information. Disciplinary counsel was compelled to depose Mr. Anschell twice.
Mr. Anschell’s conduct violated RPCs 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4(a), requiring lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; 1.4(b), requiring lawyers to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit clients to make informed decisions regarding their respresentation; 1.5(a), requiring lawyers’ fees to be reasonable; 1.15(d), requiring lawyers, when withdrawing from a case, to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests; and RLD 2.8, requiring lawyers to cooperate with disciplinary counsel investigations.
Bernadette Janet and Douglas Ende represented the Bar Association. Kurt Bulmer represented Mr. Anschell through the Disciplinary Board hearing. Mr. Anschell represented himself before the Supreme Court. The hearing officer was R. Michael Kight.
|