In re Juarez
Decision Date | 14 June 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 05686-2.,05686-2. |
Citation | 143 Wash.2d 840,24 P.3d 1040 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Santiago Eduardo JUAREZ, an Attorney at Law. |
Leland G. Ripley, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, for Santiago Eduardo Juarez.
Washington State Bar Association, Jonathan Henry Burke, Seattle, WA, for State Bar Association.
Santiago Eduardo Juarez, an attorney at law, asks this court to review the determination of the Disciplinary Board of the Washington State Bar Association that he be suspended from the practice of law for 18 months and that he continue the practice of law as a member of the Washington State Bar Association only on the condition that he be supervised by another attorney licensed to practice in the State of Washington. We granted review. We approve the determination by the Disciplinary Board.
The question presented in this case is whether the Disciplinary Board had sufficient facts to justify its conclusions and whether the Board imposed an appropriate sanction against Santiago Eduardo Juarez, applying the presumptive sanctions recommended by the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Discipline.
Respondent Santiago Eduardo Juarez was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Washington on October 25, 1974.1 A formal complaint filed by Disciplinary Counsel of the Washington State Bar Association on April 24, 1998 charged him with misconduct in 11 counts involving personal and client matters.2
Under Rule of Lawyer Discipline (RLD) 4.10 a hearing was held before Kelby D. Fletcher, Hearing Officer, on October 21, 22 and 29, 1998 at the offices of the Washington State Bar Association in Seattle, Washington.3
Respondent Juarez asks this court to determine the correctness of findings of fact, conclusions of law and sanctions recommended by the Disciplinary Board of the Washington State Bar Association, the majority of whom, by a vote of 11-1, agreed with the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the hearing officer. The scope of this review, necessitates verbatim recitation of substantially the entire text of the complaint and the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended sanctions.
The complaint included the following charges (excluding the Dorsey Matter):
Respondent's Traffic Matter:
COUNT I: Respondent's conduct in failing to appear in court at scheduled hearings in his criminal cases as required by CrRLJ 3.4(a) and by Renton Municipal Court violated Rule of Professional Conduct ("RPC") 3.4(c), and subjects Respondent to discipline pursuant to RLD 1.1(f) and/or RLD 1.1(b).
Respondent's Prior Suspension Matter:
The James Neal Suichang Matter:
On August 11, 1998, Hearing Officer Fletcher approved a stipulation for bifurcation of the disciplinary proceedings under RLD 4.12(b).6
On December 9, 1998, Hearing Officer Fletcher signed findings of fact and conclusions of law.7 The findings of fact (excluding the Dorsey Matter) stated:
1.1 The operative facts are not generally disputed. Respondent admitted the vast majority of assertions found in the formal Complaint. Bar counsel voluntarily dismissed counts V and VI of the formal Complaint. Because of that dismissal, only paragraphs 25, 27, 36, 37, 39, 40, 59, 60, 120, 127, 131, 144, 145 through 148, and 151 were disputed in whole or in part.8
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Vanderbeek
...back many years to determine whether prior disciplinary offenses serve as an aggravating factor. See In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Juarez, 143 Wash.2d 840, 880, 24 P.3d 1040 (2001) (considering a nine-year-old admonition for similar misconduct as an aggravating factor); Cohen 150 Wa......
-
In re Disciplinary Proceeding against Poole
...(2003); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Carmick, 146 Wash.2d 582, 594, 48 P.3d 311 (2002); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Juarez, 143 Wash.2d 840, 869, 24 P.3d 1040 (2001); In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Halverson, 140 Wash.2d 475, 483, 998 P.2d 833 (2000); In re Discipl......
-
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Lopez
...reflect poorly on the profession and may harm the interests of clients and others.'" In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Juarez, 143 Wash.2d 840, 885-86, 24 P.3d 1040 (2001) (quoting In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Jamieson, 98 Wash.2d 865, 868, 658 P.2d 1244 (1983)). "An attorney s......
-
MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AGAINST BROTHERS
...mitigating circumstances support a deviation from the presumptive sanction. ABA STANDARDS std. 9.0; In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Juarez, 143 Wash.2d 840, 878, 24 P.3d 1040 (2001). The hearing officer found that the prior disciplinary offense and dishonest or selfish motive were agg......
-
To Err is Human, to Apologize is Hard: the Role of Apologies in Lawyer Discipline
...P.3d 679, 692 (Kan. 2019); In re Grigsby, 815 N.W.2d 836, 844 (Minn. 2012); In re Chastain, 532 S.E.2d 264, 268 (S.C. 2000); In re Juarez, 24 P.3d 1040, 1063 (Wash. 2001); ABA STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS, Standard 1.1 (1992). 300. See supra notes 254–55 and accompanying text. Wr......
-
Chapter §12.3 RPC 8.4: Misconduct
...In re Whitney, 155 Wn.2d 451, 120 P.3d 550 (2005); In re Schwimmer, 153 Wn.2d 752, 108 P.3d 761 (2005); In re Juarez, 143 Wn.2d 840, 872, 24 P.3d 1040 (2001); In re McLendon, 120 Wn.2d 761, 768, 845 P.2d 1006 (1993); In re Hankin, 116 Wn.2d 293, 300, 804 P.2d 30 (1991); In re Witteman, 108 ......
-
Table of Cases
...1.3(2), 6.2(2), 14.1 Jones v. Home Care of Wash., Inc., 152 Wn. App. 674, 216 P.3d 1106 (2009): 4.5(2)(a) Juarez, In re, 143 Wn.2d 840, 24 P.3d 1040 (2001): 8.3(2) K____________________________________________________________________ Kagele, In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against, 149 Wn.2d ......
-
Chapter §4.5 RPC 1.16: Terminating the Attorney-Client Relationship
...[10]; RLGL §67 cmt. j; ABA Formal Ethics Op. 366 (1992). 339.RLGL §33 cmt. h (citation omitted). 340. Id. 341.In re Juarez, 143 Wn.2d 840, 24 P.3d 1040 (2001) (failure to inform successor counsel of location of files and papers upon suspension). 342.Id.; In re Burtch, 112 Wn.2d 19, 24-25, 7......