Opinion ID: 2571721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Presumptive Sanctions For RPC 1.14

Text: McKean argues the presumptive sanction for his RPC violations is a reprimand. Lawyer's Br. at 37. The WSBA argues suspension is the appropriate sanction for these violations because McKean's mental state was knowing misconduct. Answer of WSBA at 26. The Board unanimously adopted the conclusion that McKean violated RPC 1.14 by commingling personal and client funds in a lawyer's trust account and ... making illadvised disbursements of client funds[.] DP at 16 (Finding 29). The presumptive sanction is suspension when a lawyer knows or should know that he is dealing improperly with client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client. ABA Standard 4.12. McKean argues his mental state was negligence and no actual harm resulted. Lawyer's Br. at 26. As the WSBA points out, however, the hearing officer listened to McKean's lengthy explanations for disbursing one client's funds on behalf of another client, and inferred actual or constructive knowledge that his actions were unethical. Answering Br. of WSBA at 31. See, e.g., Finding 6 (Respondent loaned Jim Martin $500.00 from his attorney's trust account without any documentation as to the terms or conditions, and without obtaining permission from the owner of the funds.); Finding 13 (The money to cover these three checks belonged to Respondent's clients, who did not know and have never been informed their funds were used.); Finding 20 (Respondent deposited $5,886.93 in fully earned fees into the trust account and issued checks therefrom to pay his operating and personal expenses.) McKean himself admits he knew the consequences of making the loans. He writes in his brief to this court, I told [Martin] that was [sic] not wise for me to help him, but that if I loaned the money to him, it would have to be a short term loansixty to ninety days because I was loaning him money from a trust that I was trustee of. Lawyer's Br. at 13. Furthermore, the hearing examiner found that McKean knowingly commingled client funds with his own for a two week period in 1996. DP at 17. While the record indicates that he did not do so with a dishonest motive, he knew or should have known that commingling client funds with a lawyer's own is a serious violation. The commentary accompanying ABA Standard 4.12 makes clear that suspension applies when a lawyer mishandles a client's money, even when no ultimate harm comes to the client. Because lawyers who commingle client's funds with their own, subject the client's funds to the claims of creditors, commingling is a serious violation for which a period of suspension is appropriate even in cases when the client does not suffer a loss. ABA Standards 4.12 cmt. Here, McKean invested clients' funds held in trust, knowing of the Martins financial troubles and bankruptcy. In doing so he caused potential injury because he made his client's funds subject to the Martins' creditors. Although McKean was able to borrow money to repay the loans he made from the trust account, he knowingly imperiled his client's money held in trust. McKean also knowingly commingled client funds with his own for a two week period in 1996. We thus affirm that suspension is the appropriate presumptive sanction for the violation of RPC 1.14.