| Description: |
C. Alan Grider (WSBA No. 16927, admitted 1987), of Clarkston, has been disbarred by order of the Supreme Court effective May 31, 2001, following a stipulation. The discipline is based his failing to preserve client funds and entering into an unfair business transaction with a client from 1998 through 2000.
Matter 1: In October 1990, Mr. Grider established a trust for a client. The client was the grantor, and Mr. Grider and the client were named co-trustees. Mr. Grider also drafted a will for this client, naming himself as executor and trustee. The will contained a specific bequest to D.C., who was raised as the client’s daughter but was never legally adopted. At the time of the client’s death on May 11, 1995, the trust had $110,709.36 in assets. Mr. Grider sent monthly checks to D.C. beginning in June 1995.
In February 1998, he wrote D.C. "there should be sufficient income from the investments to keep these payments coming for many years. This I fully intend to do." D.C. did not receive any funds after September 2000. It appears that there are no remaining funds and $88,500 is missing.
Matter 2: In 1998, Mr. Grider agreed to represent a client whose husband had been killed in an automobile accident. Mr. Grider did not have a written fee agreement with the client. The court appointed the wife as personal representative of the husband’s estate and also appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for the two children. On August 4, 1998, the insurance company issued two $77,827.59 checks, one for each child. The GAL endorsed the checks and Mr. Grider deposited them into his IOLTA trust account. On August 11, Mr. Grider withdrew $100,000 and purchased a three-month certificate of deposit in the name of "C. Alan Grider ITF and [child’s name]." On August 13, Mr. Grider transferred $14,000 from the IOLTA account into his general account. Although his ledger indicates this transfer was for court-ordered fees, there were no withdrawals authorized at that time. In a declaration filed with the court, Mr. Grider stated that his fees were justified because both the insurance company and the husband’s employer initially denied coverage. In fact, neither company denied coverage.
The court approved the children purchasing one half of a family home. The client found a suitable house, but Mr. Grider told her she could not buy it. Then, in January 1999, Mr. Grider sold her a remote, undeveloped five-acre parcel he owned with his wife and another couple. Mr. Grider sent the client to another lawyer to draft the documents. The GAL was not involved in this process and Mr. Grider specified all the terms.
In July 1999, the client met with the GAL. The client explained that she could not afford to put a home on the property and that no electricity, water or roads currently served the area. The GAL contacted Mr. Grider and suggested that he refund the children’s money. In August or September 1999, Mr. Grider withdrew from the case, and another lawyer substituted as counsel for the personal representative. Mr. Grider sent a check to substituted counsel for the balance of the estate funds. Due to a shortage of funds in the trust account, Mr. Grider used other clients’ funds to cover this check.
Matter 3: Mr. Grider represented a minor in a personal-injury case. The child had been severely bitten by a dog. On December 16, 1998, the court approved a $14,272.66 settlement. The court ordered that the funds be placed in a blocked account and not released prior to the child’s age of majority without a court order. Mr. Grider’s client ledger indicates that the child’s money is still owed, but it is not in an IOLTA trust account or blocked account.
Matter 4: Mr. Grider’s client ledger for an estate had a negative balance beginning April 30, 1999, and as of the stipulation date, December 20, 2000, that balance was negative $19,221.94. On June 19, 2000, Mr. Grider sent the beneficiary a statement indicating the estate balance was $43,069.05.
Mr. Grider’s conduct violated RPCs 1.14, requiring lawyers to preserve client funds; 8.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation or deceit; 1.8(a), prohibiting entering a business transaction with a client unless the terms are fair and reasonable and the client obtains independent legal advice; and 3.3(a), prohibiting misrepresentation of material facts to a tribunal.
C. Elizabeth Williams represented the Bar Association. David A. Gittins represented Mr. Grider.
|