| Description: |
Donald B. Kronenberg (WSBA No.13979, admitted 1984), of Seattle, has been suspended for six months effective March 1, 2001, by order of the Supreme Court dated November 30, 2000. This discipline is based on his charging an unreasonable fee and failing to properly account for client funds in one matter, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and filing a frivolous claim in another.
Matter 1: On August 18, 1987, Mr. Kronenberg agreed to collect back-due child support for a client on a contingent-fee basis. The fee agreement stated that Mr. Kronenberg would receive 50 percent of all sums recovered before the deduction of advanced costs and expenses. In October 1987, Mr. Kronenberg also agreed to represent the client in a custody modification matter on an hourly fee basis. The client moved several times during the representation, at times living in Nevada and at other times, California. The client’s sister always lived in Federal Way, and Mr. Kronenberg knew or should have known that he could contact the client through her sister, since Mr. Kronenberg met with the sister at the beginning of the representation.
On January 15, 1988, Mr. Kronenberg obtained a $27,868 judgment for back support. He immediately began garnishing the debtor’s wages and, in October 1988, received a $1,164 check. He notified the client that he had received the check and indicated he would apply the amount to his fees. Mr. Kronenberg received six additional garnishment checks totaling $7,196.93. He deposited these checks into his general business account instead of his client trust account. He did not send the client copies of these checks or the garnishment pleadings. Mr. Kronenberg did not send the client any bills reflecting the amounts collected in the garnishments. Mr. Kronenberg applied all of the amounts collected on the judgment to his fees, without the client’s permission.
In December 1989, the custody matter settled with the father agreeing to enter into a voluntary $500 per month wage assignment, with $400 per month allocated to back support and $100 as current support.
In January 1990, Mr. Kronenberg received a $500 payment on the wage assignment. He kept the $400 back-due child support portion and mailed the $100 payment to the client. The check was returned because the client had moved. Mr. Kronenberg asked his staff to look in the phone book for the client’s new address, and then applied the $100 to his fees when he could not locate her. He did not attempt to contact her sister to find a current address.
From August 1987 through October 1988, Mr. Kronenberg sent the client a combined monthly statement for both matters. On November 15, 1988, he set up a separate internal billing statement for the back-support matter, which reflected that the client owed him $14,215.68 (50 percent of the judgment amount), less the $1,163.09 already received. Each month he generated a new internal billing reflecting a larger balance due from the client for garnishment costs, or a smaller balance reflecting garnishment payments, charging the client a compounded interest rate of up to 1.6 percent on the "unpaid balance."
In 1992, the client learned of the additional garnishments after looking at the court file. When she confronted Mr. Kronenberg, he first denied receiving any funds, and then stated that he was entitled to keep all of the funds until he had collected 50 percent of the judgment amount.
Matter 2: In November 1990, Mr. Kronenberg agreed to assist a client whose claim had been denied by the Crime Victims’ Compensation Program administered by the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I). The client had been involved in a shooting in Seattle in 1989. On August 15, 1990, L&I awarded the client $15,000 on his claim, to be paid in two or three installments. In October 1991, L& I sent $8,987.52 to Mr. Kronenberg. Mr. Kronenberg kept one third, plus costs, and forwarded $5,901.58 to the client.
Later that month, the client contacted L& I directly and asked to pick up the balance of his award at their office in Olympia. L&I agreed, so long as the client provided a handwritten note stating that Mr. Kronenberg no longer represented him. The client wrote the note and included a statement that he was relocating in approximately two weeks to the Midwest. The client’s father, who lived near the L&I office, delivered the note and picked up the $6,012.48 payment. Mr. Kronenberg did not receive his one-third fee from this portion of the payment.
After Mr. Kronenberg learned that the payment had been made to the client directly, he contacted the father. Mr. Kronenberg told the father that he must pay for Mr. Kronenberg’s lost fee. When the father objected, Mr. Kronenberg filed a lawsuit naming both the client and the father as respondents. Mr. Kronenberg also obtained a prejudgment writ of attachment on the father’s home.
Mr. Kronenberg stated in his declaration justifying the writ that the client, in conjunction with the father, had removed or were about to remove property from the state. Although Mr. Kronenberg admitted that the only basis for this statement was the son’s note, he refused to agree to remove the writ of attachment. The father paid $992, half the amount of the claim, to obtain a release of the writ. After the payment, Mr. Kronenberg did not take steps to dismiss the matter.
Mr. Kronenberg’s conduct violated RPCs 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep their clients informed of the status of their matters and to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary for clients to make informed decisions; 1.14, requiring lawyers to deposit client funds into their trust accounts; 1.5, requiring lawyers’ fees to be reasonable and to explain the basis for the fee to the client; 8.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; 3.1, prohibiting lawyers from bringing proceedings unless there is a nonfrivolous basis for doing so; 3.3, prohibiting knowingly making a false statement of material fact to a tribunal; and 8.4(d), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Joy McLean represented the Bar Association. Leland Ripley represented Mr. Kronenberg. The hearing officer was Andrew K. Dolan.
|