Opinion ID: 2508145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Sanctions Imposed by the Hearing Officer

Text: For VanDerbeek's violations of RPC 1.5(a) in count I, the hearing officer concluded that disbarment was the presumptive sanction because VanDerbeek knowingly sent excessive and unreasonable bills with the intent for personal gain, which caused serious emotional and economic injury to her clients. On count V, the hearing officer determined that VanDerbeek's conduct of filing attorney liens on the proceeds of her clients' real property warranted an admonishment. She also concluded that a reprimand was the presumptive sanction for counts VI and X. In determining the appropriate sanction, the hearing officer found five aggravating factors: (1) a prior 1987 disciplinary action involving dishonesty; (2) a pattern of billing misconduct as well as a dishonest or selfish motive for financial gain and self-interest; (3) failure to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct; (4) the vulnerability of VanDerbeek's clients; and (5) substantial experience in the practice of law. The hearing officer also found four mitigating factors: (1) VanDerbeek's good reputation as a lawyer; (2) the remoteness of her prior 1987 offense; (3) VanDerbeek suffered other penalties or sanctions namely the 1995 civil case brought by her former clients; and (4) the WSBA significantly delayed the disciplinary proceedings. [10] R. at 40, Mitigating Factors 17-20. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the hearing officer recommended a two-year suspension and 15 CLE (continuing legal education) hours of law office management. [11] She principally based this decision on the mitigating factor of delay and the fact that many of VanDerbeek's billing violations were a result of her husband's billing practices.