Opinion ID: 2757580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: procedural history and counts of misconduct

Text: The WSBA filed a complaint under ELC 10.3, charging Jones with four counts of misconduct. Count one charged Jones with violating RPC 3.4(c) and (d) [b ]y failing to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with one or more legally proper discovery requests served on him by Jeffrey and Peter's lawyers during the course of the pre-trial litigation. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 42. Counts two and three 11 charged Jones with violating RPC 3 .1 and/ or 8 .4(d) [b ]y filing motions for relief, vacation or revision of judgment, disqualification, and/or neutral judge that were frivolous and for filing frivolous appeals. CP at 42-43. Count four charged Jones with violating RPC 8.4( c) and/or (d) [b]y seeking to inflate the value of the piano 11 Count two charged Jones with filing motions for relief, vacation or revision of judgments, disqualifications, and neutral judge that were frivolous. Count three charged Jones with filing frivolous appeals. Because these counts both charge Jones with violations ofthe same RPCs (RPC 3.1 and 8.4(d)), they will be discussed together. 12 In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Jones, No. 201,256-6 in retaliation against Jeffrey and/or valuing the estate house at only $126,000 despite having and/or knowing of appraisals that valued the house at $155,000 or more. CP at 43. The hearing officer applied the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 & Supp. 1992) to determine the appropriate sanction. For count one, the hearing officer determined that Jones violated RPC 3.4(c) and (d) [b]y failing to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with one or more legally proper discovery requests served on him during the course of pretrial litigation. CP at 187. The hearing officer determined that Jones acted knowingly by making false responses to discovery requests and by withholding documents to conceal his dishonest responses. Such violation was found to be intentional discovery abuse that harmed the co beneficiaries of the estate, as well as the legal system. Applying ABA Standards std. 6.21, the hearing officer found that the appropriate presumptive sanction for count one was disbarment. As to counts two and three, the hearing officer found that Jones violated RPC 3.1 and 8.4( d) [b ]y filing motions for relief, vacation and revision of judgments, disqualifications, and neutral judge that were frivolous and by filing frivolous appeals. CP at 187. The hearing officer found that Jones acted with a knowing mental state because he filed such motions with the clear purpose and intent to further his vendetta against brothers Jeffrey and Peter, co-beneficiaries, in an effort to 13 In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Jones, No. 201,256-6 intimidate them by the need to pursue and fund continuing litigation. CP at 189. Such misconduct frustrated and prejudiced the administration of justice. Similarly, for count three, the hearing officer found that Jones engaged in knowingly frivolous appeals with the clear purpose and intent to further his vendetta against his cobeneficiaries. CP at 190. Applying ABA Standards std. 6.21, the hearing officer found that the appropriate presumptive sanction for counts two and three was disbarment. As to count four, the hearing officer found that Jones violated RPC 8.4(c) and (d) [b ]y seeking to inflate the value of the piano in retaliation against Jeffrey, and by undervaluing the estate house despite knowing of appraisals that valued the house at $155,000 or more. CP at 187. The hearing officer found that Jones made the misrepresentations charged in count four lmowingly as part of a dishonest scheme to defraud his cobeneficiaries. Such conduct seriously adversely reflects on Respondent's fitness to practice. CP at 190. The hearing officer applied ABA Standards std. 5.11(b) to conclude that the presumptive sanction was disbarment. The hearing officer then considered if any aggravating or mitigating factors should be applied to alter the presumptive sanction. The hearing officer found that seven aggravating factors applied: (1) dishonest or selfish motive, (2) a pattern of misconduct, (3) multiple offenses, (4) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with the rules or orders of the 14 In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Jones, No. 201,256-6 disciplinary agency, (5) refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of conduct, (6) substantial experience in the practice of law, and (7) indifference to making restitution. CP at 190-92. The hearing officer determined that one mitigating factor applied: absence of a prior disciplinary record. Pursuant to the ABA Standards' presumptive sanctions and the application of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed above, the hearing officer recommended that Jones be disbarred. The hearing officer recommended that reinstatement be conditioned on Jones' paying all unsatisfied judgments entered against him during the litigation. In September 2013, by a unanimous vote, the Board adopted the hearing officer's amended findings of fact and conclusions of law (FFCL ). 12 Jones timely sought review of the Board's order.