| Description: |
Richard H. Corbin (WSBA No. 26665, admitted 1997) of Everett, was suspended for two years, effective January 16, 2007, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a stipulation approved by the Disciplinary Board. This discipline was based on his conduct between 2004 and 2005 in three matters involving failure to communicate with clients, trust account irregularities, failure to protect a client’s interests following termination of representation, misrepresentations to clients, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and non-cooperation with a disciplinary investigation.
Matter 1: Mr. Corbin prepared a will for a client. The client died in 2004. The client’s daughter (Child A) provided Mr. Corbin with original documents. She told Mr. Corbin that her brother (Child B) was the estate executor and should be contacted regarding billing. Mr. Corbin agreed to do so, estimating that the probate would take about six months. Over the next few months, Child A attempted to contact Mr. Corbin. He did not respond until November 2004, when he called to say the probate had not been filed because he had not been paid. During this time, Mr. Corbin never communicated with Child B, except to send him a copy of the will.
In November 2004, Child A gave Mr. Corbin a check for $1,500, which Mr. Corbin cashed. Over the next few months, Child A and Child B left numerous voicemail and e-mail messages for Mr. Corbin, but were never able to speak to him directly. In both January and April 2005, Mr. Corbin left messages on Child A’s voicemail informing her that the probate would be taken care of in a few weeks. In fact, Mr. Corbin had not filed the probate and his representations about the status of the probate were untrue. After Child B filed a grievance with the Bar Association, Mr. Corbin left him a message asking if he or his sister was the executor (something they had told him many times) and for a list of his mother’s creditors (which Child A had previously provided). Child B responded promptly and tried repeatedly to contact Mr. Corbin, but was unable to reach him. Occasionally, Mr. Corbin would leave a message stating he was working on the case and that things were progressing well. In August 2005, the Supreme Court suspended Mr. Corbin for nonpayment of dues. At that time, Mr. Corbin had still not filed the probate, nor had he refunded any legal fees or returned any original documents to Child A or Child B. Child B hired a new lawyer, who attempted to contact Mr. Corbin. Mr. Corbin failed to respond or turn over the original documents. As a result, the estate incurred additional fees because the new lawyer had to file the probate documents using duplicates attested to by witnesses of the original will. Subsequently, Mr. Corbin’s family refunded Child A and Child B the $1,500 in legal fees paid to Mr. Corbin.
Matter 2: In 2004, Mr. Corbin was hired to assist a client with estate planning for her parents. In Mr. Corbin’s office, the client signed a quitclaim deed as attorney in fact for her mother, who was affected by Alzheimer’s disease, but Mr. Corbin did not record it. The client also provided Mr. Corbin with a spousal agreement signed by her parents and a durable power of attorney. In April 2005, the client’s father died and she became executor of his estate. The client tried many times to communicate with Mr. Corbin to obtain her original documents. The client subsequently hired a new lawyer, who tried to communicate multiple times with Mr. Corbin. Occasionally, Mr. Corbin would leave voicemail messages indicating that he had received the calls, but he did not return the client’s documents. The new lawyer ultimately filed a petition with the superior court seeking an order requiring Mr. Corbin to return the client’s original documents. The court issued a citation for Mr. Corbin to appear at a show cause hearing. Mr. Corbin did not appear. The court issued a second citation directing Mr. Corbin to appear at a hearing with the documents and show cause why he should not be required to pay the client’s legal fees. Mr. Corbin did not appear. The court found Mr. Corbin in contempt and issued a bench warrant. The client’s new lawyer proceeded with the probate based on the available documentation, resulting in additional expense to the client. The Bar Association subsequently obtained the client’s file and provided it to her, at which time the bench warrant was quashed. Mr. Corbin entered into a stipulated judgment to pay the client $8,803.15 in restitution. Mr. Corbin satisfied the judgment.
Matter 3: In April 2004, clients hired Mr. Corbin to file an offer and compromise with the IRS because they owed back taxes. They paid Mr. Corbin $1,500. Over the next 18 months, the clients repeatedly tried to reach Mr. Corbin by phone, in person, and through letters. Mr. Corbin responded only once, stating he had family problems and would attend to their case promptly. Because Mr. Corbin failed to take any action on the clients’ behalf, the IRS began garnishing one of the client’s monthly Social Security disability payments. The clients needed original papers in Mr. Corbin’s possession in order to address the garnishment issue, but they were unable to retrieve them from him. The clients eventually hired a tax professional, who wrote to Mr. Corbin to request the client file and a refund of the fee. Mr. Corbin did not respond. The Bar Association subsequently obtained the file and provided it to the clients. Mr. Corbin’s family refunded the $1,500 fee.
After failing to promptly respond to the grievances that arose out of the above-described matters and failing to appear at a deposition as required by subpoena, Mr. Corbin was suspended by the Supreme Court for failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation.
Mr. Corbin’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4(a), requiring a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; RPC 1.4(b), requiring a lawyer to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; RPC 1.14(b)(3), requiring a lawyer to maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to his or her client regarding them; RPC 1.15(d), requiring a lawyer to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as, inter alia, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer from violating a duty or sanction imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct in connection with a disciplinary matter (here, ELC 5.3(e)).
Joanne S. Abelson represented the Bar Association. Leland G. Ripley represented Mr. Corbin. |