| Description: |
Michael O. Riley (WSBA No. 21452, admitted 1992) of Tukwila, was disbarred, effective January 17, 2007, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following a default hearing. This discipline was based on his conduct in 2004 and 2005 in three matters involving lack of diligence, failure to communicate with clients, unreasonable fees, trust account irregularities, failure to refund unearned fees and return property to a client, commission of a criminal act, dishonesty, and non-cooperation with disciplinary investigations.
Matter 1: Mr. Riley was hired to represent a client in a dissolution matter. When the case was resolved, Mr. Riley and the client agreed that Mr. Riley would receive $4,000 from the proceeds to cover unpaid attorney’s fees and fees for possible future representation in connection with post-dissolution motions. In July 2004, Mr. Riley received two checks from the counsel for the opposing party. One check was payable to Mr. Riley for $4,000 and the other, for the balance of the proceeds, was payable to the client. Although he had only earned at most $2,916.65, Mr. Riley deposited the entire $4,000 into his business account. After July 2004, Mr. Riley did not earn any fees from the client or expend any funds on her behalf. The client terminated Mr. Riley’s services and requested a refund of the balance of her funds. Mr. Riley did not refund any money to her. At the end of July 2004, Mr. Riley was suspended from the practice of law for nonpayment of dues. He did not notify the client of his suspension or respond to numerous messages left by the client in August and September. In October 2004, Mr. Riley told the client that a refund of $1,093.35 would be available at the beginning of November. In November 2004, the client filed a grievance with the Bar Association. Mr. Riley intentionally did not provide the client with her funds until February 2005.
Matter 2: In March 2004, a client hired Mr. Riley regarding a contractor’s lien on the client’s property. Although Mr. Riley advised the client that the problem would be resolved by July, Mr. Riley neither performed any work that benefited the client nor responded to numerous requests for information on the status of the matter. Mr. Riley also did not inform the client in writing of his July 2004 suspension. During the summer of 2004, the client went to Mr. Riley’s office four times to determine the status of his matter. Mr. Riley was present only on one of those four occasions and informed the client that he could not talk to him because his license had temporarily been suspended.
Matter 3: In February 2005, a Texas resident hired Mr. Riley to handle a probate matter. The client’s father had died the previous year. The client was named as personal representative in the will. Mr. Riley agreed to handle the probate matter for $2,000, and he sent the client a fee agreement describing the $2,000 as a “fully earned fee.” The client signed the fee agreement and sent it back to Mr. Riley with a check for $2,000, together with the original will. Even though he had not earned any of the funds, Mr. Riley deposited the $2,000 into his business account. Mr. Riley did not perform any work on behalf of the estate and did not respond to the client’s numerous attempts to contact him by phone, fax, e-mail, and letter. In September 2005, the client sent a certified letter requesting that Mr. Riley return the original will and the fee if he was unable to handle the matter. Mr. Riley did not respond. In October 2005, the client filed a grievance against Mr. Riley with the Bar Association.
In the three above-described matters, Mr. Riley failed to cooperate with the Bar Association by not providing requested information and documents, by not responding to requests for responses to grievances, by not appearing at a scheduled deposition, and by not producing documents as required by subpoena. During the disciplinary investigation, it was determined that between at least August 2003 and November 2005, Mr. Riley maintained an IOLTA account for which he did not maintain complete records. During that period, Mr. Riley did not record or accurately record 63 trust account transactions, including at least $107,607 of withdrawals. Many of these withdrawals were payable to Mr. Riley or were used to pay for his personal or business expenses. After August 2003, Mr. Riley did not reconcile his trust account records to his bank statement and did not maintain client ledgers for his trust account.
Mr. Riley’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring that a lawyer 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 to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; RPC 1.5(a), requiring a lawyer’s fee to be reasonable; former RPC 1.14(a), requiring all funds paid to a lawyer or law firm, including advances for costs and expenses, be deposited in one or more identifiable interest-bearing trust accounts, and no funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm be deposited therein; former RPC 1.14(b)(4), requiring a lawyer to promptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by the client the funds, securities, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive; RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting a lawyer from committing a criminal act (here, theft) that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; RPC 8.4(i), prohibiting a lawyer from committing any act involving moral turpitude, or corruption, or any unjustified act of assault or other act which reflects disregard for the rule of law; 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 (here, ELC 5.3(e) and 14.1(c)) in connection with a disciplinary matter.
Anne I. Seidel represented the Bar Association. Mr. Riley did not appear either in person or through counsel. Lyle O. Hanson was the hearing officer. |