| Description: |
Paul H. King (WSBA No. 7370, admitted 1977), of Seattle, was reciprocally suspended for three years, based on an August 15, 2002, order of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington suspending Mr. King from April 25, 2002, through April 25, 2005. The Washington State Supreme Court's order of reciprocal discipline, entered March 9, 2005, imposed the suspension in Washington retroactive to April 25, 2002, in accordance with the dates in the District Court's order. (Owing to a clerical error in the March 9, 2005, order, the suspension did not expire until entry of corrective order on June 7, 2005.) This discipline was based on Mr. King's conduct between 1999 and 2001 in multiple pending federal matters.
Matter 1: Mr. King filed an action on behalf of a client in 1998. In December 1999, Mr. King withdrew from representing the client in the midst of settlement negotiations. At the time, Mr. King's file reflected that he had failed to respond to discovery requests, failed to assert several claims that should have been asserted, and alleged a disability claim even though plaintiff appeared not to be disabled. Mr. King did not provide his file to substituting counsel for several weeks, and not until after the client had filed a grievance with the Bar Association. Mr. King subsequently filed a motion seeking imposition of an attorney's lien in the amount of $4,581.02, even though his contingency fee agreement with the client provided that if he withdrew from representation he waived any right to fees in the matter. In denying the motion, the court found that in December 1999, Mr. King had improperly attempted to change his contingency fee arrangement with the client to an hourly fee arrangement.
Matter 2: Mr. King represented a purported plaintiff class with claims against a municipality under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In denying the motion for class certification, the court found that Mr. King had failed to make any attempt to meet the class certification requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
Matter 3: Mr. King represented a plaintiff on a claim for damage to a truck. The court imposed a $500 sanction on Mr. King on grounds that he had made improper use of profanity in a brief and urged the court to grant relief on improper grounds. At trial in the matter, Mr. King improperly advised the jury in opening argument of settlement efforts, failed to refrain from and failed to prevent his Rule 9 intern from engaging in behavior that disrupted the courtroom, and during closing argument improperly advised the jury that he strongly disagreed with the court's jury instructions.
Matter 4: Mr. King represented a plaintiff in an action for violation of state and federal wage-and-hour laws. In July 1999, Mr. King participated in settlement conference with a magistrate judge. During a break in the conference, Mr. King was informed that the assigned judge had dismissed the case. Mr. King proceeded with the settlement conference and discussed the matter as if it were still pending, without promptly advising opposing counsel and the magistrate judge of the dismissal.
Matter 5: Mr. King represented two plaintiffs in an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In September 1999, Mr. King filed an amended complaint adding new claims and joining a new plaintiff, but he neither sought leave of court to file the complaint nor served the complaint on opposing counsel within 120 days of filing as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. In March 2000, Mr. King filed a motion and declaration for permission to file a third amended complaint, adding new claims and joining additional plaintiffs. However, he failed to serve opposing counsel as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d). In March 2000, after expiration of the deadline for amending pleadings, Mr. King again filed a motion for permission to file an amended pleading but failed to file proof of service of the motion. In April 2000, Mr. King filed a certificate of service of the proposed amended complaint, but failed to indicate whether he had served the motion to amend, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d); Mr. King also submitted a proposed, unsigned order in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. In July 2000, Mr. King filed a motion of entry of judgment without noting the motion as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 7. Mr. King also filed a motion for entry of judgment in favor of several plaintiffs who had purportedly joined in complaints that had never been served. In September 2000, Mr. King filed a summary judgment motion after the cut-off date for the filing of dispositive motions.
Matter 6: Mr. King failed to appear for a March 1999 status conference in a pending matter. In response to a show cause order, he explained that the date was not listed on his calendar. The court imposed a $250 sanction.
Matter 7: After being sanctioned in Matter 6, Mr. King engaged in attempts to manipulate the District Court's case-assignment procedures in order to avoid having cases assigned to the judge who had imposed the sanction. In five matters, Mr. King voluntarily dismissed the cases and promptly refiled them. In one of the matters, when the case was reassigned to the same judge, Mr. King again voluntarily dismissed and refiled it, even though Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) provides that a second voluntary dismissal is a dismissal with prejudice. The judge ordered a hearing to show cause why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice. In the other cases, the assigned judges reassigned the cases to the original judge, who set a status conference in each for the same date as the show cause hearing. Mr. King failed to attend the status conferences and the show cause hearing; instead, he sent an attorney from another law office to attend on his behalf, who indicated that Mr. King had been called away on a family emergency. The judge imposed a sanction on Mr. King of $100 in each case, with the proviso that the sanction would be vacated if Mr. King provided an affidavit from a physician stating that the medical condition was an emergency that could not have safely been addressed until after the status conferences were concluded.
Matter 8: Mr. King submitted a declaration of a third party in support of a motion for an award of attorney fees. As a result of its own investigation, the court discovered that Mr. King had signed the declarant's name on the declaration without advising the court of this fact. There was no indication on the document that Mr. King was signing for the declarant. During oral argument on an order to show cause, Mr. King acknowledged that he was not familiar with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, permitting the filing of a declaration in lieu of an affidavit, and he claimed he believed it was appropriate to execute and submit a declaration on another's behalf without disclosing the fact that the true declarant had not signed. In July 2000, the court imposed a $1,000 sanction on Mr. King.
Matter 9: Three days after a discovery cut-off had passed in a pending matter, having conducted no discovery, Mr. King filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline. In denying the motion, the court additionally noted that Mr. King had failed to conduct a mediation by the court-ordered deadline. Three weeks after the mediation deadline, Mr. King filed a motion to appoint a mediator, which was denied. On the day of the deadline for filing dispositive motions, Mr. King filed a summary judgment motion without a supporting memorandum. Several weeks later, Mr. King filed a memorandum in support of the motion and intermittently filed supporting declarations. In May 2000, the court denied the motion, noting that Mr. King had violated the court's local rules. Two and one half weeks before trial, Mr. King attended a pretrial conference at which he agreed to waive his client's jury demand. During the conference, Mr. King appeared unfamiliar with the case and could not provide an estimate of the potential value of the case. As a result, the court, on its own motion, rescheduled the trial and extended the deadline for mediation and dispositive motions.
Matter 10: Mr. King commenced an action on behalf of a client in May 1999. In March 2000, the judge ordered plaintiff to pay $1,600 as partial compensation for defendant's attorney fees incurred as a result of plaintiff's prolonged, unexcused, and unjustified failure to make discovery. The plaintiff was subsequently found in contempt for failing to pay the sanctions, and the judge ordered Mr. King to pay an additional $3,095 to defendant.
Mr. King's conduct violated RPC 1.1, requiring that a lawyer provide competent representation to a client; RPC 1.3, requiring that a lawyer act with reasonable diligence and promptness; RPC 3.1, prohibiting a lawyer form bringing or defending a proceeding, or asserting or controverting an issue therein, unless there is a good faith basis for doing so that is not frivolous; RPC 3.2, requiring that a lawyer make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client; RPC 3.4(d), requiring a lawyer to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request; RPC 3.4(e), prohibiting a lawyer from alluding to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, or from asserting personal knowledge of facts in issue; RPC 3.4(f), prohibiting a lawyer from stating a personal opinion regarding the justness of a cause in trial; RPC 3.5(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or misrepresentation; and RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Leslie Ching Allen represented the Bar Association. John R. Scannell represented Mr. King. |