Opinion ID: 2539169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: RPC 8.4(i)

Text: ¶ 24 A lawyer commits misconduct by any act which reflects disregard for the rule of law, whether the same be committed in the course of his or her conduct as a lawyer, or otherwise. RPC 8.4(i). Cramer concedes that by operating his law business without obtaining a certificate of registration, he violated RPC 8.4(i). However, Cramer claims that he violated this rule unintentionally, notwithstanding the hearing officer's finding to the contrary. The hearing officer rejected this claim as not credible. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 441 (FFCLR 78). Based on the unchallenged findings and the discussion above, we also reject Cramer's argument. ¶ 25 Concluding that Cramer's removal of the posted revocation order, his continuation of business without a certificate of registration, and his continuation of business after the revocation order, violated RPC 8.4(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(i), we conclude that Cramer violated Count I.
¶ 26 While Count I pertains to Cramer's removal of the posted revocation order, his continuation of business without a certificate of registration, and his continuation of business after the revocation order, Count II pertains to Cramer's intentional circumvention of state tax law and DOR by changing the name of his law practice. The hearing officer and the Board concluded that, by changing the name of his business from Stephen D. Cramer, PLLC, to the Law Office of Stephen D. Cramer, Inc., PS, Cramer intentionally misrepresented that he was continuing to practice law. Therefore, the hearing officer and the Board concluded Cramer had, once again, violated RPC 8.4(c). ¶ 27 With regard to Count II, Cramer contends that he did not lie because his letter to DOR [5] merely informed DOR of his intention to close his PLLC law practice, but not his law practice generally. We reject this argument. Cramer's letter certainly misrepresented his intention to continue his practice of law despite claiming he never misrepresented that he was continuing to practice law. Pet'r's Br. at 15. Finally, the unchallenged findings of fact reflect that when Agent Jones sent Cramer notice of the September 13, 2006, hearing to determine whether to revoke his PLLC's certificate of registration, Cramer intentionally acted to circumvent this action. His testimony reveals this intention: I got a notice from DOR and it was pretty obvious they were going to make sure I couldn't continue in business under any form  under the LLC, anyway  and I thought it through and really the only option I saw would be to dissolve the LLC, form another corporate entity, and transfer the assets and liabilities to the new corporate entity. TR (Sept. 11, 2008) at 114 (emphasis added). ¶ 28 Cramer's testimony indicates that, prior to the September 13, 2006, hearing, he knew that revocation of his certificate of registration for his PLLC would mean that he would not be permitted to continue his law practice under any form. However, rather than attempting to solve his underlying tax problems with DOR, he acted to lead DOR to believe that he had stopped working while continuing to work all along. Cramer appears to advocate that an attorney has the right, in theory, to open Stephen Cramer 1, PLLC, avoid business taxes and close it; then open up Stephen Cramer 2, PLLC, avoid business taxes and close it; then open up Stephen Cramer 3, PLLC, avoid paying business taxes and close it; and so on, as long as he acts under the pretext of serving the better interests of his clients. But as the hearing officer and the Board concluded, by changing his business name to avoid his business taxes, Cramer was acting to serve his own interests, not those of his clients. His letter to DOR (recited above) and testimony support the conclusions of the hearing officer and the Board. ¶ 29 Cramer fails to understand the significance of failing to inform DOR that he was simultaneously closing one law business and opening another, as if this were an accidental oversight. The record shows that Cramer acted intentionally. Cramer opened his PLLC in 1995, operated the PLLC for 11 years, became indebted to DOR, and within a span of three days opened his PS, did not assign the PLLC liabilities to the PS, notified DOR that he was closing his PLLC, and made no attempt to reregister with DOR or notify DOR of his intention to remain in business with his PS. He cannot credibly claim he did not need to register and pay taxes or that his actions were unintentional. This effort to circumvent DOR constitutes dishonesty. The hearing officer's uncontested findings in this matter amply support the conclusion that Cramer's overall scheme to avoid DOR oversight and payment of taxes violated RPC 8.4(c). ¶ 30 Concluding that Cramer violated RPC 8.4(c) by intentionally misrepresenting that he was continuing to practice law, we conclude that Cramer violated Count II.
¶ 31 The hearing officer concluded WSBA had proved Counts I and II as charged and that the presumptive sanction for each count was disbarment. Finding no mitigating factors and four aggravating factors (prior disciplinary offenses, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process, substantial experience in the practice of law, and indifference to making restitution), the hearing officer recommended disbarment. The Board, by a vote of nine to three, adopted the hearing officer's recommendation. The dissenting members agreed that the presumptive sanction was disbarment but would have recommended a three-year suspension. ¶ 32 Applying the ABA Standards in our review of the Board's recommendation, we first determine the presumptive sanction by examining the ethical duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, and the injury caused. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Marshall, 160 Wash.2d 317, 342, 157 P.3d 859 (2007). We then determine whether the presumptive sanction should be increased or reduced due to aggravating or mitigating factors. Finally, we review the degree of unanimity among board members and the proportionality of the sanction. ¶ 33 `The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding is not punitive but to inquire into the fitness of the lawyer to continue in that capacity for the protection of the public, the courts, and the legal profession.' ABA Standards at 3 (quoting Ballard v. State Bar of California, 35 Cal.3d 274, 673 P.2d 226, 197 Cal.Rptr. 556 (1983)). The hearing officer and the Board concluded that the presumptive sanction for Cramer's intentional and dishonest acts is disbarment for Count I and disbarment for Count II pursuant to ABA Standards std. 5.11(b). CP at 44 (FFCLR 88). ABA Standards std. 5.11(b) applies when a lawyer engages in intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice. With multiple ethical violations, the `ultimate sanction imposed should at least be consistent with the sanction for the most serious instance of misconduct among a number of violations.' In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Petersen, 120 Wash.2d 833, 854, 846 P.2d 1330 (1993) (quoting ABA Standards at 3). ¶ 34 Cramer argues ABA Standards std. 5.11(b) [6] should not apply in his case for two reasons. First, he asserts that his conduct did not involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Alternatively, he asserts that, even if he had acted intentionally and dishonestly, his actions did not seriously adversely reflect on his fitness to practice law because the statutory violations were not serious. But engaging in subterfuge to evade legal obligations is very serious: Cramer intentionally used his knowledge of the law for dishonest purposes. Such conduct seriously adversely reflects on his fitness to practice and warrants disbarment. We agree with and adopt the Board's conclusion that the presumptive sanction under both counts is disbarment.