Opinion ID: 2625596
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Count 6: Two Month Delay in Payment of Settlement Amount

Text: ¶ 33 Finally, the Bar charged Poole with violating RPC 1.14(b)(4) [b]y failing to pay Mr. Matson the $7,675.35 of the BFC judgment award until December 2001. CP at 8. Based on this charge, the hearing officer determined that Poole's failure to pay the agreed $7,675.35 plus interest, as agreed to in an October 9, 2001 settlement, until December 9 and 10 constituted a violation of RPC 1.14(b)(4). ¶ 34 RPC 1.14(b)(4) mandates that [a] lawyer shall ... [p]romptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by a client the funds, securities, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive. See also 2 KARL B. TEGLAND, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: RULES PRACTICE RPC 1.14 author's cmts. at 409 (6th ed.2004) (commenting that RPC 1.14, at its essence, relates to lawyers' trust accounts and the implementation of the IOLTA system). ¶ 35 Relevant to this count, Poole and Matson dispute the nature of the $7,675.35 settlement amount. Poole consistently maintained, and the record reflects, that as of February 2001 the balance in Poole's trust account belonging to Matson was zero. Ex. 10. In fact, at least until Matson completed the trench work, it was Matson who continued to owe Poole money. Nevertheless, likely following his conversation with an uninvolved attorney in a separate matter, Matson came to the mistaken understanding that Poole was withholding $7,675.35 from the BFC judgment that rightfully belonged to him. See TR at 235. Thus, following completion of his trench work, he wrote Poole accusing him of wrongfully holding the balance of the claim that was awarded to [him] (approx. 7500.00) against the rules of professional responsibility and demanded the balance of [his] trust account returned to him. Ex. 14; FOF 31. However, no balance of the BFC judgment was owing him, and there were no funds in the firm's trust account allotted to Matson. ¶ 36 The critical fault with this count, as brought and prosecuted by the Bar, is that no amount of the $7,675.35 represented moneys owing Matson from the BFC judgment. CP at 8. The Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct (ELC) prescribe that [t]he formal complaint must state the respondent's acts or omissions in sufficient detail to inform the respondent of the nature of the allegations of misconduct. ELC 10.3(a)(3); see contra Civil Rules CR 8(a) (requiring only a short and plain statement of the claim). At no point did the Bar's complaint accurately reflect the charge of misconduct levied against Poole. ¶ 37 Based on the erroneous nature of the Bar's charging document, and the fact that it failed to accurately reflect the nature of Poole's alleged misconduct, we reverse the Board's conclusion that Poole violated RPC 1.14(b)(4) as charged by the Bar. [10] We do so because the disputed funds, contrary to the hearing officer's conclusions, did not arise out of Poole's improper retention of Matson's portion of the BFC judgment. [11] It was on this basis that the Bar charged count 6, see CP at 8 (charging Poole with failing to pay Mr. Matson the $7,675.35 of the BFC judgment award until December 2001), and on which the hearing officer concluded the charge was proved. See CL 71-72. This conclusion is not supported by the findings of fact, see contra FOF 16, 62, and thus we reverse count 6 as unproved.