Opinion ID: 2626474
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of Former RPC 1.8(h)

Text: ¶ 34 Greenlee also challenges the hearing officer's finding that his conduct violated former RPC 1.8(h). We rule that the hearing officer's holding constituted a proper application of the rule. ¶ 35 This court reviews conclusions of law de novo. Whitt, 149 Wash.2d at 716-17, 72 P.3d 173. This court upholds the hearing officer's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial (albeit disputed) evidence. Huddleston, 137 Wash.2d at 568, 974 P.2d 325. Factual findings that are unchallenged on appeal are accepted as verities. Christopher, 153 Wash.2d at 677, 105 P.3d 976. ¶ 36 As will also be discussed in the following section, Greenlee did not challenge the hearing officer's factual finding that Greenlee's sole motivation in making Sanchez-Suwaneh sign the release was to exculpate himself on the chance [Sanchez-Suwaneh's] unhappiness with him led her to take further action. CP at 42. The hearing officer also found Greenlee not credible in his claim of negligence, not reading the release prior to giving it to Sanchez-Suwaneh. CP at 32. ¶ 37 The hearing officer's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The record amply supports the conclusion that Greenlee's actions were intended to limit potential claims against him for malpractice liability.