Opinion ID: 2451203
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: wsba investigation, hearing, and disciplinary board review

Text: ¶ 15 In October 2007, Van Camp sent a follow-up letter to the WSBA. Regarding the fee agreement, he wrote: As far as I can tell, Mr. Honkala is a competent adult able to read and write. Board Ex. 65. But he agreed to forgo the flat fee and attached a time reconstruction showing he had earned well over $25,000, so the issue of a refund was moot. In discussing the case, Van Camp gets the procedural history wrong, stating Honkala represented himself at the preliminary injunction hearingbut Honkala was pro se at the TRO hearing and was represented by Van Camp's partner Deissner at the preliminary injunction hearing. Van Camp states he never saw nor received a copy of any of the injunctions, despite, at the very least, Campbell's fax in August 2007. He denied receiving any communication from Campbell on December 15, 2006, although this is the date of the chocolates reference being included in the letter sent by Campbell, which, more importantly, sought a permanent injunction and quick settlement. ¶ 16 During the investigation, Van Camp submitted various estimates of hourly charges to justify his retention of the $25,000. Van Camp's paralegal, Christian Barber, who had been directed to create these reconstructed time sheets, testified that he started by using tenth-of-an-hour increments, as he had learned to do in school. This resulted in a total fee between $8,000 and $10,000. Van Camp reviewed this and instructed Barber to use half hour increments for attorney time, in accordance with the fee agreement. The new calculations resulted in a fee between $16,000 and $20,000. Still too low for Van Camp, he directed Barber to add that Van Camp had reviewed every document that came in and went out, and each instance merited at least a half hour on the spreadsheet. This resulted in a total figure of $33,000, which Van Camp submitted to the WSBA. ¶ 17 The WSBA charged Van Camp with nine counts of misconduct, alleging numerous Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) violations. After a five day hearing, the hearing officer found six of the nine charges proved. She recommended a two year suspension and $15,000 restitution. The charges found proved are as follows: Count 1 By not abiding by the client's objectives to try to settle the case as quickly as possible, Respondent violated RPC 1.2(a). Count 2 By failing to follow up with attorney Richard Campbell's December 15, 2006 letter and other settlement proposals, Respondent violated RPC 1.3. Count 3 By failing to timely provide the client with copies of letters and settlement proposals, even after repeated requests, Respondent violated RPC 1.4(a). Count 4 By failing to explain clearly at the outset of representation how his fee would be calculated and/or how the client's $25,000 payment would be applied, Respondent violated RPC 1.4(b) and/or RPC 1.5(b). Count 5 By charging $25,000 under the facts of this case, Respondent violated RPC 1.5(a). Count 9 By misrepresenting in his July 31, 2007 letter to Honkala that Campbell had provided a proposed preliminary injunction with his December 15, 2006 letter, Respondent violated RPC 8.4(c). Decision Papers at 000002-03 (Findings of Fact). The hearing officer found American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 4.42 (1991 & Supp. 1992), with a presumptive sanction of suspension, applied for counts 1, 2, 3, and 9. The hearing officer found injury to the client and the profession, but not serious or potentially serious injury. For counts 4 and 5, the hearing officer applied standard 7.2, also with a presumptive sanction of suspension. Again, she found injury, but not serious injury, to the client. As a mitigating circumstance, the hearing officer mentioned Van Camp's reputation as a successful plaintiff's personal injury attorney. The aggravating factors were more extensive: (a) Prior Disciplinary Offenses. Before this proceeding, Van Camp had been disciplined three times. In 1985, he was censured for charging an unreasonable fee. In 2002, he was suspended for six months for making false statements in his bankruptcy proceeding. In 2005, Van Camp was reprimanded for using the term earned retainer fee when the actual purpose of the money, whether for fees, costs, or both, was unclear. This last offense was of particular note because the term earned retainer was still included in Van Camp's retainer agreement without additional explanatory language. The hearing officer thought the false statements in the bankruptcy proceeding relevant as reflecting poorly on Van Camp's record for truthfulness and honesty, and is indicative of a serious disregard for upholding the integrity of the legal system and the profession. She thought the 1985 excessive fee offense was too remote in time to matter. [Decision Papers at 000027.] (b) Dishonest or selfish motive. The hearing officer concluded an initial $25,000 fee created a disincentive to defend or pursue the client's case; further, the deliberate withholding of the December 15, 2006 letter and settlement proposals prolonged the litigation with the selfish motive of justifying the fee. (c) Bad faith obstruction during disciplinary process. The WSBA alleged and Van Camp did not contest bad faith in his replies to Honkala's grievance and questions posed by the WSBA, except to dispute knowledge of the altered [chocolates] letter. The hearing officer concluded the time sheet submitted was a grossly over-inflated fabrication of time and services, and was submitted in bad faith. [Decision Papers at 000028.] (d) Refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct. Despite prior discipline, Van Camp consistently denied any wrongdoing, refused to accept a share of the responsibility, placed blame on an unsophisticated client for giving inconsistent instructions, criticized opposing counsel for his own behavior [chocolates remark], and pointed out his staff's mistakes, lack of diligence and incompetence. Of note was his failure to provide ethical training to his staff, and that he allowed his secretary to accept entire legal responsibility for potentially committing a felony without any willingness to bear the consequences of her action. (e) Substantial experience in the practice of law. Van Camp's extensive experience did not benefit his client, nor did it result in a high level of understanding the RPCs. Decision Papers at 00026-29. ¶ 18 On review, the Disciplinary Board adopted the findings but increased the presumptive sanction to disbarment because the client, the legal system, and the profession suffered serious injury. The Disciplinary Board added an additional aggravating factor: indifference to making restitution, because three years had passed with no voluntary refund to Honkala. The Disciplinary Board found the aggravating factors out-weighed the mitigating factor, justifying disbarment. The Disciplinary Board's vote was seven to three, with the dissenters recommending a three year suspension. ¶ 19 Van Camp challenges the recommendation in this court. He argues procedural errors denied him a fair hearing and requests a new one. Alternatively, he disagrees with the conclusions of law made by the hearing officer and adopted by the Disciplinary Board, and he argues the injury was not serious and that his mental state was mere negligence, so he should only be sanctioned with a suspension of six months or less.