Disciplinary Proceeding Against Haskell, Matter of
| Citation | 136 Wn.2d 300,962 P.2d 813 |
| Decision Date | 10 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 07832-7,07832-7 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of the DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AGAINST Stephen C. HASKELL, Attorney at Law. |
Kurt M. Bulmer, Seattle, for Respondent.
Stephen C. Haskell has appealed the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) Disciplinary Board's findings that he committed several acts of misconduct and its recommendation that he be disbarred for the misconduct. He contends on appeal that: (1) the WSBA did not prove the alleged misconduct by a clear preponderance of the evidence; (2) the hearing process was tainted by the appointed hearing officer's excessive involvement in the prosecution of the case; and (3) the recommended sanction of disbarment is too extreme given the misconduct found. We hold that the evidence meets the appropriate evidentiary standard and that the hearing process was not tainted by any misconduct on the part of the hearing officer. We conclude, however, that the recommended penalty is too extreme considering the misconduct and other factors relevant
to a determination of the penalty and, accordingly, impose a two-year suspension from the practice of law.
Haskell was admitted to the Washington State Bar in 1977. He went into the practice of law in Spokane and eventually became a shareholder in the Spokane law firm of Chase, Haskell, Hayes & Kalamon. In 1996, the WSBA filed a formal complaint charging Haskell with eight counts of attorney misconduct. The charges against Haskell arose out of conduct that occurred after 1991 and while he was associated with the aforementioned law firm. Haskell denied the misconduct.
Following appointment of a hearing officer, a nine-day hearing ensued. During the course of the hearing, Haskell objected to the hearing officer becoming "an advocate on behalf of the Association's positions" in conducting an examination of a witness. Report of Proceedings (RP) at 1253. He later moved for a mistrial, citing what he contended was the "hearing examiner's participation." RP at 1256. His motion was denied.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer entered findings of fact and concluded that Stephen C. Haskell had committed seven of the charged counts of misconduct. 1 The hearing officer transmitted these findings to the Board with a recommendation that Haskell be disbarred. The following recitation of facts relating to the acts of misconduct found by the hearing officer are largely
taken from the extensive findings of fact entered by the hearing officer.
I.
In counts I and II of the complaint, the WSBA alleged that Haskell had caused billing statements to be mailed to clients which were deceptive in that they indicated that Haskell had performed legal work that had actually been performed by lower-paid associates at his firm and that, as a result, clients were billed for greater sums than they would have been had the deception not occurred. The hearing officer found in this regard that Haskell was hired by State Farm Insurance Company, Continental Loss Insurance Company, USAA Property & Casualty Insurance, and Allstate Insurance Company to represent their insureds in various lawsuits that had been commenced against the insureds. Bills for services performed by Haskell in connection with these cases were to be paid by the insurance companies. Pursuant to Haskell's instructions on some of the billing statements that were sent to these companies, Haskell's initials and billing rate were substituted for the initials of associates in his office who had actually performed the legal work identified on the bills. The hearing officer found that this occurred on billings relating to seven different cases and that it affected a total of eleven bills. The hearing officer also found that the associates who performed the legal work for which Haskell took credit ordinarily billed their time at a lower rate than Haskell, 2 and that the initial-switching, therefore, resulted in the clients collectively being overcharged in the amount of $3,136.85.
The findings indicate that before bills were sent to clients, draft bills were printed for Haskell's review. In the 11 instances noted above, Haskell either inserted his The hearing officer also found that the aforementioned insurance companies expected Haskell to personally perform the legal work on the cases that had been assigned to him. Representatives of Continental Loss and Allstate testified in that regard that they expected Haskell to personally take the depositions of plaintiffs and key witnesses. State Farm and USAA representatives indicated that Haskell was the only attorney who was authorized to work on the cases assigned to him and that he was expected to take all depositions, make arguments at hearings, and present cases at arbitration, mediation, or trial. Although State Farm and USAA representatives indicated that they understood that clerical work would be done by other persons in Haskell's law firm, they said that they wished to approve, in advance, the involvement of any other attorney in the case. The hearing officer found that Haskell was aware of State Farm and USAA's expectations that he personally work on each of the cases assigned to him.
initials on the draft bill in place of the initials of associates who had performed the legal work or instructed staff to do so. Although he gave instructions to his office staff that associates should be given internal credit for the time they worked on such cases, the final bills that were mailed to clients contained only Haskell's initials. In addition, on several occasions, Haskell sent these insurers status reports that had been prepared by associates for his signature. These reports summarized the legal work that had been performed in cases assigned to Haskell and indicated or implied that Haskell had performed legal work that had actually been provided by an associate.
The hearing officer found that Haskell's motivation in switching initials on bills was not financial gain, but rather to retain the insurance companies as clients. Nevertheless, the hearing officer determined that the aforementioned conduct constituted a violation of Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 8.4(c) (); RPC 1.4(b) (); and RPC 1.5(a) ().
He concluded, therefore, that Haskell was subject to discipline under Rules for Lawyer Discipline (RLD) 1.1(a) and RLD 1.1(i). 3
In counts III through VI of the WSBA's complaint, Haskell was charged with conducting a scheme whereby he falsely represented to a client, Farmers Insurance Company (Farmers), that he had flown coach class rather than the more expensive first class when he traveled on business for Farmers and, as a result, obtained greater reimbursement from Farmers than he was entitled to receive. The hearing examiner found in this regard that beginning in 1990, Farmers informed Haskell that it would reimburse him only for coach class airfare and would no longer compensate him for first class tickets when he traveled for that company. In 1991, Farmers began requiring Haskell to provide receipts as documentation when he sought reimbursement for airfare. Despite these admonitions from Farmers, on at least 11 occasions Haskell flew first class while conducting business for Farmers.
Haskell, according to the findings, was able to conceal the fact that he traveled first class on these occasions through the assistance of a travel agency. On the 11 occasions described above, the agency sent Haskell two invoices with the airline tickets he purchased. One invoice showed The findings also indicate that on three other occasions, Haskell directed his staff to purchase lower-priced, excursion fare, coach tickets from the travel agency and to send an invoice to Farmers indicating that he had paid the full-fare, coach price. Haskell used the excess amount of money paid to him by Farmers to pay for his and his wife's personal expenses during these trips.
that the ticket Haskell had purchased was for coach class, and the other reflected that the ticket was for first class travel. The ticket price set forth on both invoices represented the cost of first class travel. Haskell presented Farmers with the invoice which indicated that he had purchased a coach class ticket and obtained reimbursement for the amount indicated thereon.
The hearing officer determined that this conduct violated RPC 8.4(a) (attempted violation of RPC 8.4(c)); RPC 8.4(b) () through a violation of RCW 9A.56.030 () and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud); RPC 8.4(c); RPC 1.4(b); and RPC 5.3(c) (). He concluded that Haskell was, therefore, subject to discipline under RLD 1.1(a), RLD 1.1(i), and RLD 1.1(o). 4
Haskell was charged in count VIII with improperly charging personal expenses to clients. The hearing officer found that in 1992 Haskell was in the process of building a cabin near Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Haskell, according to the findings, instructed an assistant at his firm, Penny Lindstrom, to bill certain clients for telephone calls that she made for Haskell regarding the cabin. Haskell also instructed Lindstrom The hearing officer held that this conduct constituted violations of RPC 8.4(b); RPC 8.4(c); and RPC 1.5(a), and that Haskell was, thus, subject to discipline under RLD 1.1(a) and RLD 1.1(i).
to "bury" charges for copies of blueprints for the cabin in a client's bill. Despite the fact that the charges to clients for these personal expenses totaled...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cronin v. Cent. Valley Sch. Dist.
... ... evidence that restraining orders had been issued against Cronin during this time and that he had been banned from a ... considered insubordination and lead to further disciplinary action up to and including dismissal." Appellant's Ex. 7 ... The hearing officer held that in deciding the matter, he considered "only the evidence discussed in the Findings ... the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent, disinterested ... In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Haskell , 136 Wash.2d 300, 317, 962 P.2d 813 (1998). In Haskell ... ...
-
In re Disciplinary Proceeding against Hicks
... 214 P.3d 897 ... 166 Wn.2d 774 ... In the Matter of the DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AGAINST S. Richard HICKS, an Attorney at Law ... No. 200,606-0 ... Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc ... In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Kagele, 149 Wash.2d 793, 816, 72 P.3d 1067 (2003) (citing In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Haskell, 136 Wash.2d 300, 317, 962 P.2d 813 (1998))). Consequently, "an appeal of the Disciplinary Board's decision carries with it the chance that we might ... ...
-
In The Matter Of The Disciplinary Proceeding v. Preszler
... 169 Wash.2d 1 232 P.3d 1118 ... In the Matter of the DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AGAINST Terry J. PRESZLER, an Attorney at Law ... No. 200,570-5. Supreme Court of Washington, ... En Banc. Argued Feb. 24, 2009. Decided June 17, 2010 ... Tasker, 141 Wash.2d at 565, 9 P.3d 822 (citing ... In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Haskell, 136 Wash.2d 300, 317, 962 P.2d 813 (1998)). This court retains the ultimate responsibility for determining the nature of an attorney's ... ...
-
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Vanderbeek
... 101 P.3d 88 153 Wash.2d 64 In the Matter of the DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AGAINST Diane L. VANDERBEEK, Attorney at Law ... No. 11884-1 ... Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc ... However, we may ultimately reject the Board's recommendation. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Haskell, 136 Wash.2d 300, 317, 962 P.2d 813 (1998) ... The Presumptive Sanction ... VanDerbeek argues that the ... ...
-
§12.3 RPC 8.4: Misconduct
...through her husband in violation of 8.4(a)). 45.137 Wn.2d 560, 974 P.2d 325 (1999). 46.Id. at 577. 47.Id. at 573-74. 48.In re Haskell, 136 Wn.2d 300, 962 P.2d 813 (1998). 49.Id. at 307-08, 313. 50.Id. at 322; see also In re Benson, 317 Or. 164, 169, 854 P.2d 466 (1993) ("Success of the sche......
-
Table of Cases
...12.2(4) Harris v. Pierce County, 84 Wn. App. 222, 928 P.2d 1111 (1996): 13.3(2)(a) Haskell, In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against, 136 Wn.2d 300, 960 P.2d 813 (1998): 3.7(1) Heard, In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against, 136 Wn.2d 405, 963 P.2d 818 (1998): 3.3(2)(d), 8.2(3), 12.3 Herring v. ......
-
§9.1 Fees
...§1692 et seq. (Federal Debt Collection Practices Act). 156.See, e.g., In re Dann, 136 Wn.2d 67, 960 P.2d 416 (1998); In re Haskell, 136 Wn.2d 300, 962 P.2d 813 157.See Lmpc §41:2008; see also Pratt v. Pratt, 99 Wn.2d 905, 907 n.1, 665 P.2d 400 (1983) (expressing "strong disapproval" of the ......
-
Table of Cases
...Against Hall, In re, 180 Wn.2d 821, 329 P.3d 870 (2014). . . . . . . . . . . .2.04[4] Disciplinary Proceeding Against Haskell, In re, 136 Wn.2d 300, 962 P.2d 813 (1998). . . . . . . .2.07[1] Disciplinary Proceeding Against Heard, In re, 136 Wn.2d 405, 963 P.2d 818 (1998) . . . . . . . . . .......