Espedal, In re
| Decision Date | 04 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. C,C |
| Citation | 514 P.2d 518,82 Wn.2d 834 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceeding against B. Rolf ESPEDAL, an Attorney at Law. D. 3096. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
B. Rolf Espedal, pro se.
Robert O. Wells, Seattle, for respondent.
B. Rolf Espedal was admitted to the practice of law in this state on September 10, 1947. On May 5, 1958 he was suspended from practice for nonpayment of dues and was not reinstated until August 1965.
On October 29, 1965 respondent was reprimanded for: (1) failing to timely file several personal federal income tax returns; and, (2) failing to take timely action in several cases to the inconvenience of some clients and to the detriment of others. On February 10, 1970, he again came to the attention of the Washington State Bar Association (hereinafter called the Bar). On this occasion he was censured both for his willful failure to perform an agreement with another attorney and for his failure to cooperate in the Bar's investigation thereof.
In the instant case the Bar first served respondent with a formal complaint containing one charge. Thereafter, on August 31, 1972, the Bar served respondent with an amended formal complaint containing two additional charges.
Respondent appeared before the panel pro se in October of 1972. After taking evidence the hearing panel made findings, conclusions and recommendations which were adopted by the Bar's Disciplinary Board (hereinafter called the Board).
The Board has recommended that respondent be reprimanded on the first item of the amended complaint and that he be permanently disbarred from the practice of law on the second and third items.
Following are the undisputed facts upon which the Board's recommendations are based.
Item One: Respondent represented Mrs. Furseth in a personal injury action which, in April of 1971, resulted in a settlement. Defendant's draft was made payable to respondent and Mrs. Furseth. Respondent obtained her endorsement thereon and deposited the monies in his trust account. Thereafter, Mrs. Furseth sought repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, to obtain her funds. They were finally delivered July 15, 1971, after opposing counsel interceded. Respondent paid her with a bank manager's check purchased with resources from a joint savings account unrelated to respondent's law practice.
After the proceeds of the settlement draft were deposited in his trust account respondent improperly used them for his own purposes. The record discloses that the improper withdrawal of money was caused primarily by respondent and his wife, each withdrawing funds from the trust account as they felt fees were due in this and other cases. Frequent duplicative withdrawals went unchecked.
The Board concluded respondent had violated Discipline Rules for Attorneys 1.1(c) and 1.1(j) because his professional conduct failed to comply with Canons of Professional Ethics 11 and 21 which were in effect at the time. 1 CPE 11 stated:
Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly, and should not under any circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by him.
CPE 21 stated:
It is the duty of the lawyer not only to his client, but also to the courts and to the public to be punctual in attendance, and to be concise and direct in the trial and disposition of causes.
Item Two: In November 1969, Mr. Alf Ness retained respondent to probate the estate of a brother who had died intestate. Shortly thereafter Mr. Ness was issued letters of administration. Subsequently, respondent neither filed an inventory nor published notice to creditors. Further, by the time of the final hearing herein, no written appraisal had been filed although respondent had had the information available since the summer of 1972.
During the course of the probate, respondent filed a petition to sell, and in 1970 sold several assets of the estate for $9,300. The proceeds were placed in respondent's trust account.
Following the sale of assets in 1970, Mr. Ness made repeated unsuccessful requests for respondent to close the estate and distribute it to the legatees, who were Mr. Ness and four other persons living in Norway. Respondent also failed to file a state inheritance tax report and made no provision for payment of the tax. A 'Final Account and Petition for Distribution' prepared in mid-1972 purported to make an accounting and requested distribution but failed to provide for payment of penalties assessed for late payment of the inheritance tax.
Furthermore, although respondent and Mr. Ness agreed that Mr. Ness' distributive share of the estate would include the deceased's residence, respondent failed to prepare the necessary conveyance to transfer the residence. Respondent did send the four legatees in Norway checks in payment of their distributive shares. The checks were drawn on respondent's trust account. However, on June 14, before the checks could be presented for payment, the trust account was garnished.
Apparently, Mr. Ness was not told about the trust account's status. Since he had decided to go to Norway, Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krogh, In re
...The ultimate responsibility for determining the measure of discipline, nevertheless, rests with and upon this court. In re Espedal, 82 Wash.2d 834, 514 P.2d 518 (1973); In re Kennedy, 80 Wash.2d 222, 492 P.2d 1364 (1972). We have likewise reiterated the proposition that the basic and underl......
-
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Tasker
...the ultimate responsibility for determining the nature of an attorney's discipline. Id. (citing In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Espedal, 82 Wash.2d 834, 838, 514 P.2d 518 (1973)). We adopt the Board's recommendation unless the court can articulate a specific reason to depart from it a......
-
MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AGAINST ANSHCHELL, 09756-9.
...retain ultimate authority for determining the appropriate sanction for an attorney's misconduct. Id. (citing In re Discipline of Espedal, 82 Wash.2d 834, 838, 514 P.2d 518 (1973)). We will adopt the Board's recommended sanction unless we can articulate a specific reason to depart from the B......
-
Rosellini, Matter of
...P.2d 930 (1971); In re Slater, 78 Wash.2d 958, 481 P.2d 564 (1971); In re Johnson, 81 Wash.2d 46, 499 P.2d 879 (1972); In re Espedal, 82 Wash.2d 834, 514 P.2d 518 (1973); In re England, 82 Wash.2d 121, 508 [646 P.2d 125] P.2d 611 (1973); In re Delaney, 83 Wash.2d 415, 518 P.2d 713 (1974); I......
-
§12.3 RPC 8.4: Misconduct
...600 P.2d 1297 (1979); In re Delaney, 83 Wn.2d 415, 518 P.2d 713 (1974); In re Deschane, 84 Wn.2d 514, 527 P.2d 683 (1974); In re Espedal, 82 Wn.2d 834, 514 P.2d 518 216.See ELC 8.1-8.9. 217.E.g., In re Livesey, 85 Wn.2d 189, 532 P.2d 274 (1975). 218.65 Wn.2d 88, 395 P.2d 1013 (1964), cert. ......
-
Table of Cases
...15–1 n.2; 15–6 n.50; 15–7; 15–7 nn.51-54, 60, 61; 15–8; 15–8 n.63; 15–15 nn.131-134; 15–16 nn.141-144; 15–17; 15–17 n.149 Espedal, In re, 82 Wn.2d 834, 514 P.2d 518 (1973): 12–35 n.215 Estate of Fahnlander v. Fern, 81 Wn. App. 206, 913 P.2d 426, review denied, 130 Wn.2d 1002 (1996): 8–63 n.......