Opinion ID: 1034408
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Findings ofFact

Text: Kamb challenges several of the hearing officer's factual findings. It is incumbent on counsel for the appellant to present argument to the court why specific findings of fact 'are not supported by the evidence and to cite to the record to support that argument.' In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Haskell, 136 Wn.2d 300,311, 962 P.2d 813 (1998) (quoting In re Estate ofLint, 135 Wn.2d 518,532,957 P.2d 755 (1998)). Although Kamb fails to offer specific citation to the record, we nonetheless address his challenges and find them wanting. 1. Did Kamb discuss or negotiate the suppression of his client's breath test results prior to the hearing? 6 No. 200,926-3 Kamb challenges the finding that he failed to discuss or negotiate suppressing his client's breath test results until after the district court hearing. His challenge basically reiterates his version of the facts: he negotiated suppression before the hearing and simply forgot to include the relevant language in the order. But Johnson testified that he was quite certain they did not discuss the suppression issue, and the hearing officer found that Kamb's testimony lacked credibility. The hearing officer's finding is supported by substantial evidence. 2. Did Kamb falsely represent to Hearing Officer Provoe that a valid suppression order existed? Kamb next challenges the findings that he intended to cause Provoe to believe that a valid suppression order existed at the time of the DOL hearing and that he lmew there was no suppression order at the time of the DOL hearing. At the DOL hearing, however, Kamb affirmatively stated that the district court had suppressed the breath test results and even explained the basis of the nonexistent order. Kamb testified that he expressed uncertainty regarding the order during an unrecorded conversation immediately prior to the DOL hearing, but Provoe denies that this conversation occurred. Kamb's arguments conflict with Provoe's testimony, which the hearing officer found credible, and the hearing officer's findings are thus adequately supported. 3. Did Kamb lead Johnson to believe that his client's DOL hearing had not yet occurred? 7 No. 200,926-3 Kamb disputes the hearing officer's finding that Kamb led Johnson to believe the DOL hearing had not yet transpired when Kamb spoke to Johnson in the afternoon following the DOL hearing. This finding is amply supported. The testimony shows that Johnson knew defense attorneys seek breath test suppression orders before DOL hearings to take advantage of collateral estoppel. Thus, Kamb' s request for a suppression order suggested the DOL hearing was impending. Furthermore, considering his substantial experience in driving under the influence cases, Kamb presumably would have known that his request would give this impression. 4. Did Kamb knowingly, willfully, and intentionally alter the plea order? Kamb challenges the finding that he knowingly, willfully, and intentionally altered the order, arguing that his significant experience as an attorney, the fact that he never previously altered a court order, and his belief that Judge Svaren would approve the modified order weigh against this finding. However, the fact that Kamb modified the order after Judge Svaren had signed it, without the judge's permission, and after misrepresenting its contents, provides substantial evidence in support of this finding. 5. Did Kamb fail to timely disclose to Provoe that no suppression order existed? Kamb challenges the finding that he failed to timely disclose to Provoe that there was no suppression order. Kamb did not disclose the lack of a suppression order until June 2008 at the earliest, weeks after the DOL hearing and only after Provoe 8 No. 200,926-3 initiated contact with Kamb. Substantial evidence supports the hearing officer's finding that Kamb failed to timely disclose the lack of the suppression order. 6. Did Kamb 's actions injure his client? Kamb argues that his failure to negotiate and obtain a suppression order did not injure his client because Provoe might not have applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel if Kamb had presented an order with the proposed language. Even if this is true, Kamb's actions entirely eliminated the possibility of a suppression order working to his client's advantage. Provoe testified that the doctrine may have applied if she had been presented with a suppression order. The hearing officer's finding that Kamb' s failure to obtain a suppression order injured his client-whose license was suspended-is supported by substantial evidence. 7. Did Kamb commit a felony by writing on the filed court order? Kamb challenges the hearing officer's finding that he committed a felony under RCW 40.16.010 by willfully altering a court order. Kamb argues he wrote on the order but did not willfully alter it. The hearing officer found otherwise, and his finding is supported by substantial evidence, including Kamb's own representation to the WSBA in a letter stating that he asked a clerk for a blue pen because he wanted the color of his writing to match the ink already on the order. Ex. 15, at 1. 8. Are the .findings on credibility supported? Finally, Kamb argues that the hearing officer's finding that Johnson and Judge Svaren were credible witnesses is inconsistent with the hearing officer's finding of no 9 No. 200,926-3 mitigating factors because Johnson and Judge Svaren both testified that Kamb expressed remorse. Simply because the hearing officer failed to find that Kamb 's expressions of remorse mitigated his ethical violations does not mean that Johnson and Judge Svaren lacked veracity as wi~nesses. In sum, all disputed findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.