| Description: |
Armando R. Cobos (WSBA No. 27006, admitted 1997), of Seattle, was disbarred effective January 12, 2004, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2002 involving multiple acts of misconduct in two client matters during 2002.
Matter 1: In January 2002, Mr. Cobos agreed to represent a corporation in two pending lawsuits. Mr. Cobos did not deposit the client's payment into his trust account, bill the client, or provide an accounting for these funds. On May 23, 2002, the court issued an order compelling discovery and imposing $500 in attorney's fees on Mr. Cobos's client. Mr. Cobos did not notify his client of this order, provide the discovery, or pay the fees. In June 2002, the opposing party filed a summary judgment motion. Mr. Cobos did not tell his client about this motion, but the client's corporate counsel learned of the motion from the court file. On June 23, 2002, Mr. Cobos notified his client that the summary judgment motion had been continued and that he had completed the responsive pleadings. Mr. Cobos had not actually prepared responsive pleadings and did not contact his client after this date. Mr. Cobos did not inform his client or the court of his withdrawal from this case. In early July, the opposing party filed a motion for contempt against Mr. Cobos's client. Mr. Cobos did not tell opposing counsel that he no longer represented the company, or forward the pleadings to the corporation. At the end of July 2002, Mr. Cobos vacated his office, and, by August, his office phone number was disconnected. Mr. Cobos did not return the client file to the client or produce the file in response to the Bar Association's subpoena.
Matter 2: In March 2002, Mr. Cobos agreed to represent the wife in a marriage-dissolution action. In April 2002, Mr. Cobos submitted pleadings indicating that the husband had stocks, bonds, and a pension. The client told Mr. Cobos that the husband did not have these assets. The wife initially asked that the husband contribute to her tuition costs. Later, the wife received a tuition grant, and asked Mr. Cobos to withdraw the request for contribution. Mr. Cobos told the client to keep quiet about the grant and pocket the money from her husband. Mr. Cobos continued to ask for this tuition contribution against the client's expressed wishes. On two occasions, while discussing payment of attorney's fees, Mr. Cobos asked the client to assist him in obtaining a false Mexican birth certificate and passport. In May 2002, the husband's lawyer filed a motion to revise the temporary order, including attorney's fees and sanctions against Mr. Cobos. Prior to the date of this hearing, the client told Mr. Cobos that she and her husband were discussing reconciliation. Mr. Cobos advised the client several times not to reconcile with her husband until after the hearing, so the court could award attorney's fees to Mr. Cobos. Mr. Cobos made several verbal attempts to become intimate with the client during the representation. The client terminated the representation prior to the hearing. The parties filed a joint motion dismissing the dissolution petition. Mr. Cobos threatened to sue the husband for filing the grievance in this matter.
Mr. Cobos's conduct violated RPCs 1.2, requiring lawyers to abide by a client's decisions regarding the objectives of the representation; 1.3, requiring lawyers to diligently represent their clients; 1.4, requiring lawyers to keep clients informed about the status of their matters; 1.7(b), prohibiting lawyers from representing a client if the representation might be materially limited by the lawyer's own interests, unless the client consents in writing after a full disclosure; 1.8(k), prohibiting a lawyer from having sexual relations with a current client, unless the sexual relationship existed between them at the time the lawyer-client relationship commenced; 1.14(a) and (b), requiring lawyers to deposit client funds in a trust account, maintain records of client funds, and provide accountings of those funds; 1.15(d), requiring lawyers to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect clients' interests upon withdrawal; 3.3(a), prohibiting lawyers from making false statements of material fact or law to the tribunal; 8.4(b), prohibiting committing criminal acts (attempt to violate Title 18 U.S.C. § 1028) that reflect adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; and 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and ELC 5.3(e) (formerly RLD 2.8), requiring lawyers to promptly cooperate with disciplinary investigations.
Christine Gray represented the Bar Association. Mr. Cobos represented himself. Paul M. Larson was the hearing officer.
|