In re Blanchard

• Citation: 144 P.3d 286,158 Wn.2d 317
• Decision Date: 12 October 2006
• Docket Number: No. 200,316-8.,200,316-8.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Parties: In re the Matter of the DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AGAINST Stephen B. BLANCHARD, Bar No. 12294, an Attorney at Law.

144 P.3d 286

In re the Matter of the DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AGAINST Stephen B. BLANCHARD, Bar No. 12294, an Attorney at Law.

No. 200,316-8.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Argued June 6, 2006.

Decided October 12, 2006.

Stephen Bruce Blanchard, Blanchard Law Offices, Edmonds, WA, pro se.

Kurt M. Bulmer, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Natalea Skvir, Washington State Bar Association, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

J.M. JOHNSON, J.

¶ 1 Stephen Blanchard appeals the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) Disciplinary Board's (the Board) recommendation that he be suspended from the practice of law for one year. Mr. Blanchard does not dispute the findings of fact or conclusions of law. Instead, Mr. Blanchard argues that the length of the suspension is inappropriate. Mr. Blanchard also makes a procedural argument that the Board erred when it failed to set forth any reasoning for amending the hearing officer's recommended suspension— 30 days—in favor of an increased suspension of one year. Thus, he argues his due process rights were violated and we must remand to the Board in order for it to state its reasons for increasing the sentence.

¶ 2 Remand is unnecessary because we have plenary authority over disciplinary actions. Moreover, we find no violation of Mr. Blanchard's due process rights. However, we note that the Board erred when it failed to follow its own rules and did not set forth reasoning pursuant to ELC 11.12(e) when it amended the hearing officer's recommendation. Thus, we review Mr. Blanchard's case de novo.

¶ 3 After considering Mr. Blanchard's violations, aggravating and mitigating factors, and comparing his case with the facts of other cases, we conclude that Mr. Blanchard should be suspended for six months.

Facts and Procedure

I. Facts

¶ 4 Mr. Blanchard has been a licensed attorney in the state of Washington since May 17, 1982.

¶ 5 The facts giving rise to this disciplinary action arise from Mr. Blanchard's dealing on two cases: the Weiser matter and the Taft matter. The facts of these cases are not in dispute.

A. Weiser Matter

¶ 6 Charles and Elizabeth Weiser (a married couple) sought Mr. Blanchard's representation regarding loans they had made to Ms. Weiser's son, William Saunders. The loans totaled $187,592.87. The loans were consolidated into a single promissory note secured by deeds of trust on three pieces of property owned by William in Kingston, Washington.

¶ 7 In 1996 William filed chapter 7 bankruptcy and failed to make payments on the promissory note to Mr. and Ms. Weiser. Through the bankruptcy, two of the Kingston properties were sold and Mr. and Ms. Weiser received the proceeds. The third piece of property remained part of William's bankruptcy estate.

¶ 8 In January 1997 Mr. and Ms. Weiser asked Mr. Blanchard to represent them in collecting on the loan that William owed them regarding this third piece of property (Lot A). Mr. Blanchard said he would charge an hourly fee for this collection matter.

¶ 9 At the end of January 1997 Mr. Blanchard sent Mr. Weiser a $1,578.92 bill for fees relating to a prior representation. Mr. Weiser wrote Mr. Blanchard a check for $1,500, which contained the handwritten note "Advance on Legal Service." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 87. Mr. Blanchard deposited the check into his general account, not his trust account.

¶ 10 At the end of February 1997 Mr. Blanchard sent Mr. Weiser a $229.71 bill for additional fees. Mr. Blanchard does not have any record of having billed Mr. Weiser following this bill nor does he have any records for work performed on Mr. and Ms. Weiser's case following this bill.

¶ 11 In October 1998 Mr. Blanchard phoned Mr. and Ms. Weiser and requested $1,000 so that he could seek authorization for the sale of Lot A. Mr. and Ms. Weiser paid Mr. Blanchard $1,000 in order for him to sell Lot A. Mr. Blanchard deposited the $1,000 into his general account, not his trust account.

¶ 12 Mr. Blanchard did not pursue the foreclosure on Lot A.

¶ 13 Mr. Weiser died on April 6, 1999. Ms. Weiser and her other son, Ronald Saunders, met with Mr. Blanchard in August 1999 regarding collecting on the loan to William. Ms. Weiser also asked Mr. Blanchard for paperwork regarding the money that Mr. Weiser had paid him. Mr. Blanchard said he would send an accounting to her.

¶ 14 Mr. Blanchard did not make further contact with Ms. Weiser and did not provide an accounting or any paperwork regarding the money paid. Between September 1999 and January 2001 Ronald wrote Mr. Blanchard five letters, on behalf of Ms. Weiser requesting an accounting and a refund. Mr. Blanchard received all five of these letters; however, he failed to respond to any of them. Mr. Blanchard did not provide an accounting to Ronald or Ms. Weiser. Mr. Blanchard does not have any records to demonstrate that he earned the $770.29 difference that was paid in October 1998 in excess of the $229.71 billed. Mr. Blanchard did not refund any money to Ms. Weiser.

¶ 15 William's bankruptcy closed in March 2001 and Lot A, which did not sell during the bankruptcy, was distributed back to William.

¶ 16 Jeannette Cyphers, an attorney representing Ms. Weiser in Mr. Weiser's probate, agreed to assist Ms. Weiser in collecting on the loan to William. The outstanding principal balance of the loan was between $75,000 and $80,000. The promissory note and deed of trust was foreclosed, and Lot A was sold for $60,500 in December 2002.

¶ 17 In December 2001 Ms. Weiser filed a grievance against Mr. Blanchard with the WSBA. The WSBA referred Ms. Weiser to fee arbitration. Mr. Blanchard did not respond to Ms. Weiser's petition for fee arbitration, and she renewed her grievance in November 2002. The WSBA sent Mr. Blanchard several copies of the grievance, but Mr. Blanchard failed to respond. Finally, the WSBA served Mr. Blanchard with a subpoena duces tecum, and he appeared for deposition on March 12, 2003.

B. Taft Matter

¶ 18 Norman Taft hired Mr. Blanchard to represent him in his dissolution action.

¶ 19 Mr. Taft and Gay Westmoreland married on August 4, 2001. On August 23, 2002, Ms. Westmoreland told Mr. Taft that she wanted a divorce—Mr. Taft was away on business at the time. Mr. Taft made arrangements for a friend, Jeff Madsen, to retrieve his personal possessions from the residence where he and Ms. Westmoreland had lived. Mr. Madsen retrieved some of Mr. Taft's property; however, Ms. Westmoreland refused to allow Mr. Madsen to pick up many of Mr. Taft's personal possessions, including a large screen television and family heirlooms.

¶ 20 In August 2002 Mr. Taft hired Mr. Blanchard to represent him in the dissolution. At a meeting on August 25, 2002, Mr. Taft informed Mr. Blanchard that he wished the dissolution to move along as quickly as possible and that he wanted the rest of his belongings from Ms. Westmoreland. Mr. Taft and Ms. Westmoreland had no children together; thus, the primary issue in the dissolution was the division of property.

¶ 21 Mr. Blanchard and Mr. Taft agreed that Mr. Blanchard would charge an hourly fee ($175 per hour); however, no written fee agreement was executed. Mr. Taft paid $750 to Mr. Blanchard on August 27, 2002.

¶ 22 On August 29, 2002, Mr. Taft signed dissolution pleadings prepared by Mr. Blanchard. On the same day, Mr. Blanchard filed a summons and petition for dissolution on behalf of Mr. Taft in Snohomish County Superior Court. However, the petition did not contain Mr. Taft's signature as required by law. Mr. Blanchard never filed a petition that was signed by Mr. Taft.

¶ 23 Ms. Westmoreland's attorney, Ms. Hendricks, informed Mr. Blanchard that Ms. Westmoreland would not accept service of the summons and petition and that he needed to properly serve her client. On October 8, 2002, Ms. Hendricks sent Mr. Blanchard a letter stating, "just a reminder that my client has yet to receive service in this case." CP at 95. On November 5, 2002, Ms. Hendricks sent another letter to Mr. Blanchard stating, "please personally serve my client with the necessary papers or I will move to have this action dismissed at your client's expense." CP at 95. On December 20, 2002, Ms. Hendricks sent a third letter to Mr. Blanchard again requesting that her client be served so that the matter could continue. Mr. Blanchard did not serve Ms. Westmoreland.

¶ 24 Mr. Taft repeatedly informed Mr. Blanchard that he wanted the case to move forward quickly and that he would not put up with stalling tactics. Mr. Taft also repeatedly asked Mr. Blanchard to take action to secure the return of certain items of personal property that remained in Ms. Westmoreland's possession. Mr. Blanchard did not file a motion for the return of Mr. Taft's personal property.

¶ 25 Around October 2002 Mr. Blanchard asked Mr. Taft to pay him $1,500—he did not provide Mr. Taft with a billing statement. Mr. Taft thought the money was for anticipated fees and costs in deposing Ms. Westmoreland. Mr. Taft paid Mr. Blanchard $1,500. Mr. Blanchard deposited the money into his general account, not his trust account.

¶ 26 Mr. Blanchard scheduled a deposition for Ms. Westmoreland for October 2002, but it was continued. Mr. Blanchard rescheduled the deposition for December. Ms. Hendricks informed Mr. Blanchard that she would not allow Ms. Westmoreland to be deposed until she was served with the summons and petition.

¶ 27 When Mr. Blanchard informed Mr. Taft that the December deposition had been canceled, Mr. Taft learned for the first time that the summons and petition had never been served.

¶ 28 Mr. Taft sought the help of another attorney, Paula McManus. Mr. Taft and Ms. McManus reviewed Mr. Taft's court file and Ms. McManus noticed that the petition for dissolution lacked Mr. Taft's signature—this was the first time that Mr. Taft learned that the petition was unsigned and invalid.

¶ 29 On January 3, 2003, Mr. Taft sent a letter to Mr. Blanchard informing him that he no longer wished to use his...