| Description: |
Joseph W Kuhlman (WSBA No. 42884, admitted 2010) of Spokane, WA, was disbarred, effective 3/31/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. Kathy Jo Blake and Nate Blanchard acted as disciplinary counsel. Joseph W Kuhlman represented themselves. Knowrasa T Patrick was the hearing officer.
The lawyer’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawy), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5 (Fees), 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law), 5.8 (Misconduct Involving Disbarred, Suspended, Resigned, and Inactive Lawyers), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(a) (Attempt, Assists or Induce), 8.4(b) (Criminal Act), 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (Prejudicial to the Admin of Justice), 8.4(i) (Moral Turpitude, Corruption or Disregard of Rule of Law) and 8.4(l) (ELC violation).
The hearing officer recommended, and the court ordered, that Kuhlman be disbarred from the practice of law in Washington State.
Kuhlman was found to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by 1) providing false information to Judge Dimke and filing a response to the U.S. District Court’s February 26, 2025 show cause order that contained one or more false statements of fact and/or law, 2) causing Judge Dimke to appoint Kuhlman’s client a federal public defender and set one or more court hearings and issue more than one court order to facilitate delivery of the client’s file to the client, 3) testifying falsely under oath that Respondent terminated an employee for performance issues related to the client’s case, 4) failing to promptly provide the client with a copy of their client file, 5) falsely stating to ODC that Respondent fired Respondent’s office manager and providing ODC with a fabricated email that purported to fire one of Respondent’s employees, 6) failing to promptly respond to disciplinary counsel’s March 17, 2025 investigative inquiry, 7) failing to effectuate service on the defendants and failing to take actions to prosecute a client’s case, 8) failing to keep the client informed about the status of their case and failing to respond to the client’s reasonable requests for information, 9) collecting $9,500 and performing work of little value to the client, failing to provide the client information about fees and costs, and failing to refund unearned fees, 10) providing false and misleading information to the client about the status of Respondent’s license, about Respondent’s ability to represent the client, and about the circumstances of Respondent’s suspension, and failing to advise the client that they should seek legal advice elsewhere, 11) failing to file anything on a client’s behalf for over a year and failing to diligently pursue an order vacating the client’s convictions and/or an order restoring the client’s firearm rights, 12) collecting $4,250 from the client and then failing to perform any work on the matter and failing to return unearned fees, 13) lying to the client about the case status, progress, lack of progress, and the reasons for the delay in resolving the client’s case, 14) failing to respond to disciplinary counsel’s written requests for a response to the client’s grievance and failing to produce all documents in Respondent’s possession relating to Respondent’s representation of the client, 15) failing to diligently pursue an order for amended release conditions and failing to appear at the September 20, 2024 hearing in a client’s criminal case, 16) making one or more false statements to Judge Biviano during the small claims hearing, 17) failing to refund unearned fees to the client, 18) making one or more false and/or misleading statements in Respondent’s response to ODC, 19) failing to promptly respond to disciplinary counsel’s written requests for a response to the client’s grievance, failing to produce the client’s client file as commanded by a subpoena, and failing to appear as commanded by a subpoena at the January 6, 2025 deposition of Respondent by ODC, 20) failing to diligently pursue a client’s protection order, 21) failing to respond to the client’s reasonable requests for information, 22) collecting a $4,354.40 flat fee from the client then failing to perform any work of value to the client and failing to refund unearned fees, 23) lying to the client about the status of Respondent’s law license, and lying to the client about the circumstances surrounding Respondent’s interim suspension, 24) lying to ODC about the work performed on the client’s case, providing ODC with a fabricated document, lying to ODC about the reasons for Respondent’s non-responsiveness to ODC’s request for a response to the grievance, and providing false and misleading information to ODC about Respondent’s compliance with ELC 14.1, 25) failing to promptly respond to disciplinary counsel’s written requests for responses to the client’s grievance, failing to produce all documents in Respondent’s possession relating to Respondent’s representation of the client, and failing to appear as commanded at the January 6, 2025 deposition of Respondent by ODC, 26) failing to respond to a client’s reasonable requests for information, 27) collecting $7,000 and then failing to perform any work of value to the client on the matter and failing to refund unearned fees, 28) failing to promptly respond to disciplinary counsel’s written requests for a response to the client’s grievance and failing to produce all documents in Respondent’s possession relating to Respondent’s representation of the client, 29) failing to diligently pursue a client’s restraining order, 30) collecting $2,000 in fees and then failing to perform any work of value to the client on their matter and failing to refund unearned fees, 31) failing to respond to disciplinary counsel’s written requests for a response to the client’s grievance and failing to produce all documents in Respondent’s possession relating to Respondent’s representation of the client, 32) proceeding with the motion to release firearms after a client communicated that they did not want Respondent to proceed with the motion and that the client wanted the court and authorities to keep and/or destroy the firearms, and arguing or implying to the court that Respondent was acting with the client’s authority, 33) failing to inform the client that Respondent proceeded with the February 6, 2025 hearing and about the outcome of the February 6, 2025 hearing, 34) engaging Respondent’s legal assistant to communicate with prosecutors on Respondent’s behalf, attempting to obtain deputy prosecuting attorneys’ agreement to continuances, requesting other lawyers cover Respondent’s cases, and having other lawyers stand in for Respondent while Respondent’s law license was suspended, 35) not informing two other lawyers about the true cause and status of Respondent’s law license suspension, lying to another lawyer about submitting responses to ODC, and withholding material information from the court about the client wanting to forfeit the weapons to obtain an order allowing Respondent’s law firm to take possession of the client’s firearms, 36) failing to promptly respond to disciplinary counsel’s written requests for a response to a client’s grievance, 37) collecting $15,000 and performing very little work, failing to refund unearned fees, and collecting funds and attempting to collect funds from a client’s parent while Respondent’s law license was suspended, 38) discussing the client’s lawyer-client privileged information with the client in front of a third party, discussing the client’s lawyer-client privileged information in a recorded jail phone call with the client and their parent, and discussing the client’s lawyer-client privileged information in a manner that renders it non-privileged, 39) providing legal advice to the client while Respondent’s license was suspended and failing to take necessary steps so that the client and their parent (who was also Respondent’s client in a different matter) understood not to rely on Respondent as a lawyer authorized to practice law, 40) providing false and misleading information to the clients about the status of Respondent’s license, about the reason why Respondent could not attend court on March 5, 2025, about Respondent’s ability to represent them, and about the circumstances of Respondent’s suspension, and failing to advise the clients that they should seek legal advice elsewhere.
Decision documents: Hearing Officer’s Decision; Disciplinary Board Order Declining Sua Sponte Review and Adopting Hearing Officer’s Decision; and Washington Supreme Court Order.
|