Opinion ID: 1367602
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: review of factual history

Text: Respondent Richard A. Petersen (Respondent) graduated from Gonzaga University Law School in 1975. He was admitted to the Washington State Bar in 1978. [1] In February 1986, he was appointed by the Clark County Superior Court to represent defendant James Michael Dykgraaf in a capital case, State v. Dykgraaf. [2] After the trial, Respondent prepared a motion for payment of criminal defense costs. The Superior Court issued an order authorizing payment in the amount of $6,827.25. [3] A claims warrant was issued to Respondent on January 21, 1987. [4] He did not deposit the funds into a trust account and instead kept the draft for about a week. [5] He testified that he cashed the warrant, that he was overdrawn at his bank, that $1,600 from the warrant was used to cover the overdraft, and that he kept the remaining $5,200. He said he does not know what he did with the money and that he kept no records. He testified that he was fairly certain he used the money to pay his answering service, telephone bill, and other business expenses. He further testified that some of the cash was used for personal expenses. He claims that some of the defense vendors in the Dykgraaf case were paid from the cash, although he has no records of payment and does not remember how the vendors were paid. [6] In February or March 1987, Arthur Curtis, Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, was contacted by several of the Dykgraaf defense vendors inquiring about payment of their fees. [7] He contacted Respondent Petersen by telephone and letter and was told by him in mid-March that the matter had been taken care of. [8] In April 1987, the prosecuting attorney referred the matter to Gregory P. Canova, senior assistant attorney general for the State of Washington and chief of the Criminal Division. Mr. Canova testified that records subpoenaed from Respondent Petersen's bank showed that the Clark County claims warrant was deposited in his account, which was not designated as a trust account. Mr. Canova said the activity in the account during that period was for Respondent Petersen's personal and business expenses, such as rent, payment of office telephone bills and bar expenses. [9] Mr. Canova said no checks were issued to the Dykgraaf defense vendors. [10] In 1987 and 1988, Respondent Petersen filed false declarations of compliance with the Washington State Bar Association (Bar Association) concerning his trust account. [11] In February 1989, Respondent Petersen contacted the Bar Association and informed it that he was under criminal investigation for his conduct relating to payment of the Dykgraaf defense vendors. [12] He was instructed by Ms. Maria S. Regimbal, bar counsel, to provide the Bar Association with his records relating to the Dykgraaf funds. Correspondence from the Bar Association to Respondent during the following 10 months repeatedly made the same request, but he failed to provide any records. [13] In April 1990, Respondent met with the Bar Association. He had prepared several checks, but was instructed to pay the vendors direct pursuant to Bar Association policy. Ms. Regimbal had received no evidence that the vendors had been paid. [14] At the time of Respondent's hearing before the hearing officer on July 12, 1990, the vendors still had not been paid. He stated that he had mailed a check to one of them on July 11, 1990. [15] At the time of his hearing before the Disciplinary Board in December 1990, he still had not paid all amounts owed to the Dykgraaf vendors. [16] In mid-1986, Respondent was appointed by the Clark County Superior Court to represent Glenn H. Budd, who was charged with unlawful issuance of checks to Fred Meyer, Inc., in State v. Budd. [17] In July 1986, Mr. Budd delivered $530 to Respondent's office for restitution to Fred Meyer, Inc. [18] Respondent did not deposit the money in his trust account until October 20, 1987. [19] He said he had kept the money in his files. [20] He received repeated reminders from the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney about the Fred Meyer restitution. Respondent did not pay the restitution to Fred Meyer until November 1988. [21] This matter was also referred for investigation to Assistant Attorney General Canova by the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney. On November 10, 1987, Respondent was appointed by the Clark County Superior Court to represent Kenneth Steiger in an appeal of a vehicular homicide and assault conviction in Clark County in State v. Steiger. [22] Despite repeated reminders from the clerk of the Court of Appeals, Respondent failed to perfect Mr. Steiger's appeal. He did not respond to telephone calls from Mr. Steiger's parents and failed to keep a scheduled appointment with them. When they telephoned the Court of Appeals, they were told that the case had been remanded to the Superior Court because counsel (Respondent Petersen) had failed to follow through on the appeal. [23] Respondent Petersen claims he was depressed during the period covering his conduct in those matters. He consulted with Richard S. Keyser, a nurse practitioner in psychiatry and mental health at the Vancouver Guidance Clinic in Vancouver, Washington. [24] Mr. Keyser first started seeing Respondent in October 1988, at which time Mr. Petersen informed Mr. Keyser that he was having legal difficulties. [25] Mr. Keyser testified that he believed that, at the time of the conversion of the Clark County claims warrant, Respondent was suffering from serious depression brought on by the death of his father, a heavy work load, financial difficulties and his divorce. [26] He testified that the depression started to subside in May 1987. [27] He further testified that Respondent Petersen understood that the funds did not belong to him and that he appreciated that it was wrong to take the funds. [28] According to Mr. Keyser, Respondent recognizes his obligation to make restitution, but harbors some ambivalence concerning it. [29] In August 1989, Respondent Petersen was charged in the Clark County Superior Court with first degree theft of the Dykgraaf claims warrant and second degree theft of the Budd restitution. [30] In September 1989, he entered into a 2-year diversion agreement with the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney. It provided that Respondent would make restitution to all the Dykgraaf vendors and would see a mental health counselor twice a month for at least 1 year. [31] Respondent has not fully complied with the agreement. He has been slow making restitution and has not fully complied with his scheduled appointments with his diversion counselor or therapist. [32] In February 1990, a formal complaint was filed by the Bar Association charging the following (as summarized by the hearing officer): Count I  Alleging respondent failed to deposit a Clark County claims warrant of $6,827.25 intended for payment of criminal defense expert witnesses, into trust, in violation of the trust account rules. (RPC 1.14) Count II  Alleging respondent converted the Clark County claims warrant to his own use and benefit in violation RCW 9A.56.020 and ethical rules prohibiting criminal and dishonest conduct (RLD 1.1(a), 1.1(c); RPC 8.4(b), (c), (d)). Count III  Alleging respondent failed to maintain complete and adequate trust account records of Clark County claims warrant and the use [of] those funds, in violation of trust account rules (RPC 1.14(b)(3)). Count IV  Alleging respondent misrepresented to Prosecutor Art Curtis, that he had paid a Dykgraaf expert witness, in violation of ethical rules prohibiting dishonesty (RLD 8.4(c) and (a)). Count V  Alleging respondent failed to promptly deposit $530 in restitution funds from a client (Glenn Budd) into a trust account in violation of trust account rules (RPC 1.14(a)). Count VI  Alleging respondent converted Glenn Budd's funds to his own purposes in violation of the Rules for Lawyer Discipline and the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibiting criminal and dishonest acts. .... Count VI A  Alternatively alleging respondent Petersen deposited and disbursed his own funds from his trust account to pay the Glenn Budd restitution violated trust account rule[s] (RPC 1.14(a)) and RPC 8.4(c) prohibiting an attorney from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty. Count VII  Alleging respondent failed to promptly pay the victim retailer, restitution as directed by his client, Mr. Budd, in violation of trust account rules requiring prompt disbursal of client funds (RPC 1.14(b)) and competency rules (RPC 1.3)). Count VIII  Alleging respondent failed to promptly forward restitution to the victim-retailer and ensure prompt dismissal of the criminal charges against Mr. Budd, in violation of ethical rules requiring an attorney to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. (RPC 1.3) Count IX  Alleging in spring 1987, respondent filed a false 1986 trust account declaration of compliance in violation of ethical rules prohibiting dishonesty (RPC 8.4(c)). Count X  Alleging in spring 1988, respondent filed a false 1987 trust account declaration of compliance in violation of ethical rules prohibiting dishonesty (RPC 8.4(c)). Count XI  Alleging respondent provided bar counsel false information on February 16, 1989, by advising her that he had paid restitution to all Dykgraaf defense vendors in violation of ethical rules prohibiting dishonesty (RPC 8.4(c)). Count XII  Alleging respondent failed to produce his trust account records and books when requested by bar counsel during the investigation in violation of disciplinary rules requiring an attorney to cooperate in an investigation, and to produce records when requested (RLD 2.8). Count XIII  Alleging respondent failed to perfect a criminal appeal on behalf of client Kenneth Steiger in violation of ethical rules requiring competent and diligent representation of clients (RPC 1.1 and 1.3). Count [XIV]  Alleging respondent failed to communicate with client Steiger and his parents regarding the status of the appeal in violation of ethical rules requiring an attorney to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter (RPC 1.4). Count XV  Alleging respondent's conduct as outlined above demonstrated unfitness to practice law. Findings of fact and conclusions of law, at 1-4. A hearing was held on July 12 and 13, 1990, before Dennis R. Colwell, hearing officer. Respondent Petersen appeared without counsel and represented himself. The hearing officer considered ABA Standards [33] 4.11, 5.11, 4.14 and 4.44 and aggravating and mitigating factors in the case, and entered the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: [Findings of Fact] 1. In 1986, respondent Richard A. Petersen was appointed to represent the criminal defendant in a murder case, State of Washington v. James Michael Dykgraaf, Clark County Case No. 86-1-00111-5. 2. During his representation of Mr. Dykgraaf, respondent Petersen retained the services of various professionals to assist him in trial preparation and/or to appear as expert witnesses at Mr. Dykgraaf's trial. 3. In fall 1986, respondent Petersen represented defendant Dykgraaf in the criminal trial. On September 23, 1986, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of aggravated murder in the first degree for defendant James Michael Dykgraaf. 4. During the pendency of the Dykgraaf criminal trial, the professionals (hereafter the Dykgraaf Defense Vendors) who provided services to assist in the preparation of the defense of James Dykgraaf, sent respondent Petersen invoices for their professional services. 5. On December 30, 1986, respondent Petersen filed a Motion and obtained an Order Authorizing Payment to the Dykgraaf Defense Vendors from the Clark County Superior Court. 6. On or about December 30, 1986, respondent Petersen filed the Order Authorizing Defense Services (ASSOC EX 2) with the Clark County Clerk and submitted a claim voucher for payment (ASSOC EX 3). 7. On or about January 27, 1987, the Clark County Treasurer issued a claims warrant, payable to respondent Richard Petersen, in the sum of $6,827.25, for the benefit of the Dykgraaf Defense Vendors (ASSOC EX 1). 8. On or about January 29, 1987, respondent Petersen presented the claims warrant (ASSOC EX 1) at a U.S. Bank branch in Oregon. Respondent Petersen did not deposit the claims warrant into a trust account. 9. At that time respondent Petersen deposited $1,600 of the claims warrant into his general account at the U.S. Bank of Oregon, account #XXXXXXXXX. Respondent Petersen also received cash from the warrant in the sum of $5,200, on that date. Respondent knowingly used those proceeds to pay personal expenses including his child support obligation, office rental, office telephone, and other business related expenses. No direct evidence was submitted that respondent Petersen used those proceeds to pay any of the Dykgraaf vendors. 10. In January or February 1987, respondent Petersen paid Dykgraaf Defense Vendor, Linda Conway [ sic ], Ph.D, $600 for her professional services in the Dykgraaf proceeding. 11. On or about February 3, 1987, respondent Petersen paid Dykgraaf Defense Vendor, Mary Jadwisiak, $476 for her professional services in the Dykgraaf proceeding. 12. On or about February 20, 1987, Dykgraaf Defense Vendor, Kevin McGovern, Ph.D., wrote respondent Petersen a letter requesting payment of $2,155.20, for his professional services in the Dykgraaf trial. The letter reflected Dr. McGovern's belief that respondent Petersen had received funds from the County for his payment of McGovern's professional services (ASSOC EX 21). 13. In January or February 1987, respondent Petersen paid Dykgraaf Defense Vendor, William Kittleson, $933.00 for his services in the Dykgraaf case. 14. On or about February 23, 1987, Dykgraaf Defense Vendor, Guy Pavaresh [ sic ], MD, wrote respondent Petersen and inquired who he should contact regarding payment of his professional services bill for the Dykgraaf trial. 15. On or about March 2, 1987, Guy Pavaresh [sic], MD, again wrote respondent Petersen and advised him that he was aware that respondent Petersen had received funds from the County on his behalf and on behalf of other Dykgraaf Defense Vendors. Dr. Pavaresh [ sic ] requested respondent Petersen to pay the bill for services or he would file a bar complaint. 16. As of February or March 1987, the Clark County Prosecutor, Art Curtis, was aware that respondent Petersen had received funds from the County for the Dykgraaf Defense Vendors. 17. On or about March 9, 1987, respondent Petersen falsely advised the Clark County Prosecutor, Art Curtis, that he would pay the Dykgraaf Defense Vendors. 18. On or about March 19, 1987, respondent Petersen advised Clark County Prosecutor, Art Curtis, that he had paid Guy Pavaresh [ sic ], MD, for his services in the Dykgraaf trial. 19. On March 24, 1987, Clark County Prosecutor, Art Curtis, wrote respondent Petersen and advised him as of that date, Dr. Pavaresh [ sic ] had not received payment from respondent Petersen. Mr. Curtis advised respondent Petersen that he felt compelled to go forward with the matter. (ASSOC EX 13) 20. On March 30, 1987, Nathaniel Cogan, Ph.D., brought suit against respondent Petersen in Small Claims Court for the defense services he had provided in State v. Dykgraaf. (ASSOC EX 22) Dr. Cogan was to have been paid from the funds in the Clark County warrant. 21. On or about April 7, 1987, Prosecutor Curtis, contacted Washington State Assistant Attorney General, Greg Canova regarding his concerns about the Clark County claims warrant that had been issued to respondent Petersen for the payment of the Dykgraaf Defense Vendors. 22. In 1987, the State Attorney General's Office undertook the investigation of this matter, which was later expanded to include the issue of the Glenn Budd restitution. (See below) Respondent Petersen was clearly aware that such investigations were underway and that criminal charges could be filed by August 1988, when he sought to be appointed as counsel in a capital case, State v. Stein. In August 1988, there was a discussion in chambers between the bench, respondent and the prosecutor in State v. Stein regarding both the Dykgraaf vendors and the Glenn Budd restitution. 23. On or about June 4, 1987, Nathaniel Cogan, Ph.D, a Dykgraaf Defense Vendor, obtained a default judgment of $371.27 against respondent Petersen for Dr. Cogan's services in State v. Dykgraaf. (ASSOC EX 22, 23) 24. Respondent Petersen received notice of Dr. Cogan's judgment on or about June 4, 1987. 25. On or about October 23, 1987, respondent Petersen purchased a number of cashier's checks for payment of Dykgraaf Defense Vendors, that remained unpaid as of that date. He used personal funds to purchase these cashier's checks. 26. Although respondent Petersen purchased a cashier's check payable to Clark College in the sum of $30, and a cashier's check payable to Kaiser Medical Center in the amount of $50.50, he did not deliver these funds to Clark College, nor to Kaiser Medical Center at that time or thereafter. 27. Respondent Petersen may have left the checks in his desk. In October 1988, Steven Thayer, Mr. Petersen's counsel for State v. Petersen, delivered these two original cashier's checks to State Assistant Attorney General, Greg Canova. At all times, Mr. Canova considered the checks to be evidence; he did not consider the delivery to him to constitute restitution. At no time did Mr. Canova advise Mr. Petersen or his counsel that the delivery to him was to be considered restitution, or that he would deliver the checks to the payees, Clark College and Kaiser Medical Center. 28. In October 1987, respondent Petersen delivered cashier checks, in the sum of $1,550 to Guy Pavaresh [ sic ], MD, and in the sum of $580 to Edward Colbach, MD, as payment of their fees for professional services in State v. Dykgraaf. 29. On or about January 19, 1988, attorney John M. Davis of Port Orchard, Washington, wrote respondent Petersen on behalf of Barbara White-Davis, a Dykgraaf Vendor. (ASSOC EX 25) 30. In December 1989, and thereafter, state bar counsel reminded Mr. Petersen that the restitution to Ms. White-Davis, Kaiser Medical Center, and Clark College remained outstanding. 31. Thereafter respondent Petersen advised state bar counsel and his diversion officer that he would pay the restitution to Ms. White-Davis, Clark College and Kaiser Medical Center. 32. At the July 12, 1990 hearing, respondent testified that on July 11, 1990, he had mailed a personal check for $240 to Barbara White-Davis. 33. Ms. White-Davis did not receive this check as Mr. Petersen had addressed it to her husband, John Davis, attorney at law, Port Orchard, Washington, without a street address. (ASSOC EX AA) 34. This check was returned to respondent Petersen and he forwarded a new personal check for $240 to Ms. White-Davis on August 2, 1990, which she ultimately negotiated. (ASSOC EX CC) 35. In 1986, respondent Petersen was appointed to represent the defendant in State of Washington v. Glenn H. Budd, Clark County Superior Court Cause #XX-X-XXXXX-X, relating to Mr. Budd's issuance of NSF checks to Fred Meyer, Inc. 36. In July 1986, Glenn H. Budd delivered $530 cash to respondent Petersen's office for payment of restitution to the victim, Fred Meyer, Inc. 37. Respondent Petersen did not promptly deposit these funds in a trust account, nor adequately record receipt of these funds. 38. In fall 1986, respondent Petersen on behalf of Mr. Budd, contacted Clark County Deputy Prosecutor Meyers, who was assigned to State v. Budd. 39. Deputy Prosecutor Meyers advised respondent Petersen to delivery [ sic ] Mr. Budd's restitution funds to Fred Meyer, Inc. and he would then request that the Superior Court dismiss the pending criminal charges against Mr. Budd. 40. In April 1987, Deputy Prosecutor Meyers again reminded respondent Petersen about payment of the Glenn Budd restitution to Fred Meyers, Inc. 41. In the fall of 1987, Mr. Budd contacted respondent Petersen regarding payment of the restitution to Fred Meyer, Inc., as he (Mr. Budd) had recently been contacted by Washington State Assistant Attorney General, Greg Canova, as part of the investigation in State v. Petersen, Clark County Cause No. 89-1-00871-8. 42. On October 20, 1987, respondent Petersen deposited $530 into his trust account for the benefit of Mr. Budd. The hearing officer finds that Mr. Petersen maintained these funds in his client file until the date of deposit. 43. In the fall of 1988, Mr. Petersen was reminded that there again was an issue outstanding regarding his failure to pay [ sic ] Glenn Budd restitution. (ASSOC EX 46) 44. Respondent Petersen did not arrange for payment of Mr. Budd's restitution funds to Fred Meyer, Inc. until November 1988. 45. On or about November 11, 1988, respondent Petersen issued to Fred Meyer, Inc. on behalf of Glenn Budd, his trust account check #117 for restitution in the amount of $529.83. (ASSOC EX 20) 46. In September 1989, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Meyers arranged for dismissal of the charges against Glenn Budd, in State v. Budd, Clark County Superior Court Cause #XX-XXXXXX-X. (ASSOC EX 7) 47. In spring 1987, respondent Petersen was the subject of an investigation by the Washington State Bar Association regarding his professional conduct. .... 49. At that time, [April 14, 1987] respondent Petersen advised the staff investigator that he had had some emotional difficulties in the past, and had some difficulty in managing his law practice. However, he also advised the investigator that he was much better, had sought professional counseling and was attempting to conduct his practice in an appropriate and ethical manner. In 1987 and thereafter, respondent Petersen sought assistance and counseling from the Oregon Professional Liability Fund. 50. On or about May 21, 1987, respondent Petersen filed with the Washington State Bar Association his 1986 declaration indicating his compliance with RPC 1.14 (the trust account rule). (ASSOC EX 26) 51. At that time, Mr. Petersen had not handled client funds properly, and in particular, the Clark County Claims Warrant, in compliance with RPC 1.14. 52. On or about April 1, 1988, respondent Petersen filed with the Washington State Bar Association his 1987 declaration indicating his compliance with RPC 1.14. (ASSOC EX 27) 53. At that time, Mr. Petersen had not handled client funds, in particular the funds of Glenn Budd, properly or in compliance with RPC 1.14. .... 55. At that time, [February 16, 1989] Mr. Petersen voluntarily advised bar counsel that the Washington State Office of Attorney General had opened a criminal investigation regarding his conduct in his handling of the Dykgraaf Defense Vendor funds and his handling of the restitution funds for his client, Glenn Budd. 56. At that meeting, respondent Petersen advised bar counsel that he had paid all the State v. Dykgraaf Defense Vendors, by October 1987, out of his own pocket. 57. The hearing officer accepts respondent's testimony that at that time (February 1989) he believed all of the Dykgraaf Vendors had been paid. The hearing officer also accepts respondent Petersen's testimony that he believed that the restitution to Clark College and Kaiser Medical Center had been made through his counsel's delivery of checks to Assistant Attorney General Canova. This latter belief was incorrect and respondent Petersen was negligent in assuming otherwise. 58. Respondent Petersen's statements to bar counsel at the February 1989 meeting were not true, because at that time and thereafter, at least three of the State v. Dykgraaf Defense Vendors (Barbara White-Davis, Kaiser Medical Center, and Clark College), remained unpaid. 59. On February 27, 1989, respondent Petersen was requested to produce his financial records for the Washington State Bar Association in conjunction with the investigation. .... 62. In fall 1989, state bar counsel made other written requests to respondent Petersen through his counsel for all relevant trust account records.... No records were produced. 63. Bar counsel ultimately received some but not all of respondent Petersen's trust account records from Assistant Attorney General Greg Canova. .... 65. The hearing officer accepts the respondent's testimony and the testimony of his counsel, Steve Thayer, that at the time of the WSBA requests, respondent's financial records were chaotic or did not exist. 66. At the hearing respondent acknowledged he had been served with an RLD 4.12 Notice to Produce Documents at hearing, and he did not bring the documents to the hearing. 67. The hearing officer finds that with respect to the false trust account affidavit of compliance filed in spring 1987 (Count IX) respondent acted knowingly. 68. The hearing officer finds that with respect to the false trust account affidavit filed in spring 1988 (Count X) respondent acted negligently. 69. The hearing officer finds that with respect to respondent Petersen's conduct in February 1989 in providing bar counsel false information regarding the payment of restitution to the Dykgraaf Vendors (Count XI), respondent acted negligently. 70. In 1987, respondent Petersen represented Kenneth Steiger on charges of vehicular homicide and assault, State of Washington v. Kenneth Steiger, .... Respondent sought and was appointed to serve as Mr. Steiger's counsel on appeal. 71. On or about December 9, 1987, respondent Petersen filed a Notice of Appeal in State of Washington v. Steiger. 72. On or about December 15, 1987, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Division II ... advised Mr. Petersen that no filing fee had been paid ... and that the appeal would be dismissed unless a filing fee or Order of Indigency was entered.... .... 74.... the clerk set a Motion for Dismissal and for further sanctions for April 20, 1988, if respondent Petersen did not perfect the appeal. .... 76. On or about June 23, 1988, the Court of Appeals, Division II, issued an Order of Remand ... for appointment of a new counsel on behalf of Mr. Steiger. 77. Subsequent to September 1987, respondent Petersen would not regularly speak with Mr. Steiger or his family regarding his case. 78. On or about August 18, 1988, Mr. Steiger's parents appeared for a scheduled appointment with Mr. Petersen. The Steigers sought the assistance of their own counsel to establish the meeting, as Mr. Petersen would not respond to their calls. Respondent Petersen failed to appear for the appointment. 79. The Steigers directly contacted the Court of Appeals  Division II and learned that their son's appeal had been dismissed and the case mandated to Superior Court. 80. Following the appointment of new counsel, Kenneth Steiger's conviction and exceptional sentence was affirmed by the Court of Appeals  Division II. 81. The record indicates that in 1987 and thereafter, Richard Petersen suffered from a depression during which he committed all the acts for which he is now subject to discipline. The depression was brought on by the death of his father, back-to-back murder trials, including one capital case, more financial problems and the break-up of his marriage  all of which occurred in a very short period of time. The record further indicates that although a major depression abated sometime in late 1987 or early 1988, respondent Petersen has not completely recovered from his emotional problems, or more precisely he has not learned to effectively cope with his problems. 82. In spring 1987 and thereafter, respondent was under investigation by the Office of Attorney General with respect to his handling of the Clark County claims warrant. In August 1989, respondent was charged with first degree theft as to the Clark County claims warrant, and second degree theft as to the Glenn Budd restitution. (ASSOC EX 8) Immediately thereafter, respondent entered into a diversion agreement with the State with respect to such charges, and as of the date of the hearing, was still subject to that agreement.... 83. Although there are indications, including respondent's failure to timely make restitution, which suggests some ongoing emotional problems, the record, including respondent's skillful examination of witnesses and marshalling of evidence in this proceeding indicates that he is generally fit to practice law and to adequately, and in fact clearly, understand the charges pending against him, and the potential ramifications of this proceeding. Respondent's peers and adversaries consider him to be a skillful trial lawyer. Although the hearing officer does have some reservations about respondent's return to the private practice of law, there is no issue of disability under RLD 10.2(c) or RLD 10.2(b)....[ [34] ] [Conclusions of Law] 84. Respondent Petersen's conduct in failing to deposit into trust the Clark County Claims Warrant intended as payment of the Dykgraaf Defense Vendors violated RLD 1.1(i) in that it violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: RPC 1.14, requiring that an attorney deposit and maintain client funds in trust. Count I is proven. With respect to this conduct, respondent acted knowingly. 85. Respondent Petersen's conduct in using the Clark County Claims Warrant funds for his own personal use violated RLD 1.1(a), in that it violated RCW 9A.56.020, and is the commission of an act involving moral turpitude and dishonesty; and violated RLD 1.1(c), in that it violated respondent Petersen's oath as an attorney to abide by the laws of the State of Washington; and violated RLD 1.1(i) in that it violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: RPC 8.4(b), prohibiting an attorney from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting an attorney from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and RPC 8.4(d) prohibiting an attorney from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Count II is proven. With respect to this conduct, respondent acted knowingly. 86. Respondent Petersen's conduct in failing to keep adequate records of his receipt of the Dykgraaf Vendor Funds and his record of disbursal of funds to the Dykgraaf Defense Vendors violated RLD 1.1(i) in that it violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: RPC 1.14(b)(3), requiring that an attorney maintain complete records of all client funds, coming into his possession and render appropriate accounts regarding them. Count III is proven. With respect to this conduct, respondent acted knowingly. 87. Respondent Petersen's conduct in advising Clark County Prosecutor Art Curtis on or about March 19, 1987, that he had paid Guy Pavaresh [ sic ], MD, for his services in the Dykgraaf case, violated RLD 1.1(i) in that it violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting an attorney from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation and RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting an attorney from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Count IV is proven. With respect to this conduct, respondent acted knowingly. 88. Respondent Petersen's conduct in failing to promptly deposit the cash of $530 which he received from Glenn Budd in July 1986 for payment of restitution to Fred Meyers [ sic ], into a trust account violated RLD 1.1(i) in that it violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: RPC 1.14(a), requiring that all funds of clients paid to a lawyer be deposited and maintained in an [ sic ] trust account. Count V is proven. With respect to this conduct, respondent acted negligently. 89. The Association has failed to carry the burden of proof with Count VI, ... and Count [VI A]. 90. Respondent Petersen's conduct in failing to promptly pay a third party, Fred Meyer, as directed by Mr. Budd, violated RLD 1.1(i) in that it violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: RPC 1.14(b)(4), requiring that an attorney promptly pay or deliver to the client or third party client funds as directed by the client, and RPC 1.3, requiring that an attorney act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Count VII is proven. With respect to this conduct, respondent acted knowingly. 91. Respondent Petersen's conduct in failing to ensure prompt dismissal of the criminal charges against Mr. Budd, on his payment of restitution, violated RLD 1.1(i) in that it violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: RPC 1.3, requiring that an attorney act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Count VIII is proven. With respect to this conduct, respondent acted knowingly. 92. Respondent Petersen's conduct in May 1987, in filing a Declaration of Compliance with RPC 1.14, which was not true, violated RLD 1.1(i) in that it violated the rules of Professional Conduct: RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting an attorney from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation. Count IX is proven. With respect to this conduct, respondent acted knowingly. 93. Respondent Petersen's conduct in April 1988 in filing a Declaration of Compliance with RPC 1.14, which was not true, violated RLD 1.1(i) in that it violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting an attorney from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation. Count X is proven. With respect to this conduct, respondent acted negligently. 94. Respondent Petersen's conduct in providing bar counsel false information on February 16, 1989, regarding his payment of restitution in full to the Dykgraaf Defense Vendors, violated RLD 1.1(i) in that it violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting an attorney from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation. Count XI is proven. With respect to this conduct, respondent acted negligently as he believed that the restitution to Clark College and Kaiser Medical Center had been made through delivery of the checks to the Attorney General. This belief was incorrect and respondent Petersen was negligent in assuming otherwise. 95. The Association did not prove by a clear preponderance of the evidence that respondent Petersen failed to produce his trust account books and records when requested by state bar counsel as the hearing officer finds during the relevant period respondent did not maintain such records. Consequently, the hearing officer cannot conclude that it is a violation to fail to produce that which one does not have. 96. Respondent Petersen's conduct in failing to promptly perfect Mr. Steiger's appeal, and in failing to meet the mandated court deadlines which resulted in the Mandate of Mr. Steiger's case to Superior Court for appointment of new counsel, violate RLD 1.1(i) in that it violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct: RPC 1.1, requiring that an attorney provide competent representation to a client, RPC 1.3, requiring that an attorney act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Count XIII is proven. With respect to this conduct, respondent acted negligently. 97. Respondent Petersen's conduct as outlined above establishes unfitness to engage in the private practice of law. Count XV is proven.[ [35] ] The hearing officer applied the American Bar Association (ABA) Standards and recommended that Respondent Petersen be suspended from the practice of law for 6 months and then placed on supervised probation for 2 years on the conditions (1) that he comply with the terms and conditions of his diversion program, (2) that he continue mental health counseling for the entire period of his suspension and probation, and (3) that he complete at least 30 hours of Bar Association-approved law office management Continuing Legal Education before he could again engage in the practice of law. The Disciplinary Board on January 11, 1991, heard oral arguments on the matter and affirmed the hearing officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, by a vote of 9 to 2, it determined the recommended sanction to be inadequate and instead recommended a 2-year suspension followed by 2 years of supervised probation. Board member Henry Haas dissented, contending that the case should be remanded for determination of Respondent Petersen's mental state during the time of the claimed misconduct and for additional findings concerning the existence of a clinically diagnosed state of depression. Board member C.C. Bridgewater dissented, contending that the appropriate sanction for the handling of the Dykgraaf and Budd matters should be disbarment because there were no extraordinary mitigating factors in the case. Respondent Petersen did not appeal the ruling of the Disciplinary Board. The Board of Governors denied Bar Association counsel's request for authorization to file a petition for discretionary review. The matter was referred to this court for entry of a final order. On April 5, 1991, this court issued an order to show cause why Respondent should not be disbarred.