Opinion ID: 2588467
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Challenges of Findings of Facts

Text: Kagele challenges 64 out of 181 of the hearing officer's findings of fact, which were adopted by the Board. We will uphold the hearing officer's findings of fact if they are supported by a clear preponderance of the evidence, even if the evidence is disputed. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Anschell, 141 Wash.2d 593, 606, 9 P.3d 193 (2000); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against McMullen, 127 Wash.2d 150, 162, 896 P.2d 1281 (1995). Furthermore, we give considerable weight to the hearing officer's findings particularly when the credibility and veracity of witnesses are at issue. In re McMullen, 127 Wash.2d at 162, 896 P.2d 1281; see also In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Bonet, 144 Wash.2d 502, 512, 29 P.3d 1242 (2001) (credibility of witness is determination that properly resides in the hearing officer). After reviewing the record, we are convinced that the evidence substantially supports the challenged findings of fact, except for the hearing officer's findings that Kagele completed a specific percentage of work for nine separate clients. DP at 7-30, Finding of Fact 33(FOF) (Kagele performed only 10% of the work he was hired to do for the Sewells), FOF 54 (10 percent for the Turners), FOF 73 (15 percent for Camacho), FOF 97 (5 percent for the Shutes), FOF 109 (30 percent for the Van Diests), FOF 128 (80 percent for Born), FOF 148 (5 percent for Matlock), FOF 171 (75 percent for Hite), and FOF 181 (80 percent for McKinney). The record is silent on the method used by the hearing officer to calculate these percentages and contains no time analysis of Kagele's work for each client. The evidence does not establish what specific services Kagele agreed to render and lacks any assessment of the reasonable value of the services he did provide. While the record does contain client testimony regarding the purpose for which each client hired Kagele, as well as clients' perception of what Kagele did in each case, such evidence does not provide sufficient support for determining a percentage of work completed. No witnesses testified as to the time involved in researching or preparing each case. Moreover, Kagele and two of his clients, the Shutes and Mr. Matlock, apparently resolved disputes over the reasonableness of Kagele's fees in court. In both cases, the courts found Kagele's fee reasonable and fully earned and awarded judgments in his favor. By contrast, the hearing officer found that Kagele performed only five percent of the work he was hired to do for the Shutes and for Mr. Matlock. We hold that Findings of Fact 33, 54, 73, 97, 109, 128, 148, 171, and 181 are not supported by the record. Kagele also challenges 55 other findings of fact but does so by arguing his version of the facts while ignoring testimony by other witnesses that supports each finding. Although we have independently reviewed the record, we give particular weight to the hearing officer's findings based upon a determination of credibility and veracity of witnesses, as he has direct contact with the witnesses and is in the best position to make such judgments. In re Bonet, 144 Wash.2d at 512, 29 P.3d 1242; In re McMullen, 127 Wash.2d at 162, 896 P.2d 1281. Considering the record and the hearing officer's findings, we uphold the findings of facts, except for those findings discussed above.