Opinion ID: 1166119
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: leonard w. schroeter

Text: Mr. Schroeter was represented by counsel both at the hearing stage and before this court. His brief is limited to a discussion of those matters which support the board's recommendation of his discipline. Basically the brief attempts to disassociate Mr. Schroeter from Mr. Kennedy's activities. For example, in referring to Mr. Kennedy's attempt to increase the attorneys' fee the brief states: This was entirely Mr. Kennedy's undertaking and not Mr. Schroeter's ... Mr. Schroeter was busy with conducting the trial and trying to salvage a settlement. He had no part in the conversations regarding fees .. . The brief goes on to assert that all Mr. Schroeter knew of the so-called agreement to change the contract was what Mr. Kennedy told him; and, that subsequent to obtaining the $7,500 settlement until mid-December Mr. Schroeter had nothing further to do with the matter and no knowledge of what was happening. This, he contends, includes the fact that he had nothing to do with the letter dictated by Mr. Kennedy, to which his own secretary appended his name. This appears to agree with the panel's finding of fact on the subject. However, it is interesting to note that it is at odds with Mr. Kennedy's proposed findings of fact 18 and 28 which read in pertinent part as follows: [18] The first person pronoun me was used in the first paragraph because Mr. Schroeter dictated this part of the letter ... [28] Mr. Schroeter was informed by letter and telephone of the different transactions in relation to the Fitzsimonds lawsuit as well as other office business. Obviously, both versions cannot be correct. The panel believed Mr. Schroeter on this dispute of fact. As between Mrs. Markos and Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Schroeter suggests that Mr. Kennedy is the more credible witness. However, considering the entire record before the panel, we cannot say it erred by believing Mrs. Markos rather than Mr. Kennedy, any more than it erred by believing Mr. Schroeter rather than Mr. Kennedy. The panel had the witnesses before it. It was in a better position than we to judge the veracity and to evaluate the testimony of those witnesses who appeared before it. In re Little, 40 Wn.2d 421, 244 P.2d 255 (1952); In re Foster, 40 Wn.2d 1, 239 P.2d 1060 (1952); In re Thacker, 35 Wn.2d 605, 214 P.2d 507 (1950). Mr. Schroeter contends that the panel's finding of fact 33 is in conflict with the evidence. It reads: The items of expense shown on the statement were paid by Mr. Kennedy without consultation with Mrs. Markos and without her approval as to the amounts. He agrees that the finding may be correct insofar as precise dollar amounts are concerned. He contends, however, it is erroneous as to the individual items and the approximate total amount which the client knew would be payable. The worst that can be said is that the testimony is in conflict. That conflict was resolved against Messrs. Kennedy and Schroeter. Inasmuch as the evidence adequately supports the finding of fact it is not in error. [8] Mr. Schroeter excepts to the panel's conclusion of law that his actions breached CPE 11 and 22. His assertion seems to be based upon a contention that all of the unethical activities were carried out by Mr. Kennedy and the fault is his. Mr. Schroeter argues that there is no evidence that he had any knowledge of what had transpired until he attended the meeting with the Markoses in December. There, for the first time, he asserts, he learned of the failure to make a prompt accounting and of the accusation that funds had been distributed contrary to his client's wishes. As a result, he has challenged the following recommendation of the board: Mr. Schroeter was not an active participant in the events after September 26, 1967; however he ratified these acts in the December interview with Mr. and Mrs. Markos then knowing the fee to be disputed, no prompt accounting to have been made, Mr. Kennedy to have acted against the client's wishes, and fees to have been taken; and, he has retained all his portion of the fee collected as his own. It is recommended that Mr. Schroeter be reprimanded. (Italics ours.) It must be noted that nothing in CPE 11 relieved Mr. Schroeter of the duty to provide his client with an accounting. Furthermore, he does not deny that subsequent to the telephone conversation with Mr. Diamond, he knew that an accounting had not been made. At that point in time he also knew that there was a serious dispute with the Markoses. In fact, he was informed that things had reached such a stage that they planned to report the matter to the bar association. Nevertheless, Mr. Schroeter did nothing. Assuming Mr. Schroeter remained unaware of all facts until the pre-Christmas meeting, he acquired full knowledge on that date and continued to retain the disputed funds. Thus, the panel concluded correctly that, by his retention of the funds, Mr. Schroeter ratified the prior acts of Mr. Kennedy. The panel's conclusion that Mr. Schroeter violated CPE 11 and 22 is fully supported by the findings of fact.