Vandercook, In re, C
| Decision Date | 03 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. C,C |
| Citation | 78 Wn.2d 301,474 P.2d 106 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceeding Against M. W. VANDERCOOK, An Attorney at Law. D. 329. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Washington State Bar Association, Robert O. Wells, Jr., Seattle, for bar.
M. W. Vandercook, pro se.
The Board of Governors of the Washington State Bar Association filed a formal 1-item disciplinary complaint (Discipline Rules for Attorneys 3.1, RCW vol. 0), charging attorney M. W. Vandercook with inexcusable neglect and delay in the handling of a divorce action. Hearings were held in accordance with DRA 3.2 before a panel consisting of Brooks K. Johnson, Chairman, Howard P. Pruzan and John W. Ellis, members of the bar of this court. Our review of the record shows that the evidence amply supports the findings of fact and conclusions entered by the hearing panel.
M. W. Vandercook was admitted to the bar October 23, 1920, by the Supreme Court of the state of Washington. The events relating to this proceeding occurred during his practice of law in Seattle and King County where he maintained his law office. In June, 1966, Mr. Edson Case, an attorney in Puyallup, brought a divorce action for a Mrs. Nancy Branch. Mrs. Branch's husband appeared by counsel, and at a show cause hearing in the King County Superior Court an order was entered directing the husband to pay certain sums for her support and attorney's fees, the order being prepared and presented to the court by the husband's counsel.
Mr. Case and Mr. Vandercook knew each other from law school days and Mr. Vandercook had handled a few matters for Mr. Case on earlier occasions. Mr. Case, intending to withdraw from the practice of law, during October, 1966, arranged with Mr. Vandercook to take over two of his matters, one being the Branch divorce case.
During the fall of 1966, Mrs. Branch, thinking that they were to go to court to obtain a divorce decree, met Mr. Case at the King County Courthouse. Instead, she was taken to Mr. Vandercook's office. There she was informed that Mr. Case was retiring from practice and that her case would be turned over to Mr. Vandercook. During the discussion, she agreed that Mr. Vandercook would succeed Mr. Case as her attorney. She was not at the time asked to pay Mr. Vandercook any money for his services as counsel.
Mr. Branch heard nothing from Mr. Vandercook for some time so in June, 1967, more than 6 months after he had taken over her case, she began telephoning him for information about it. He gave her no explanation for the delay or inaction, but she continued calling him by telephone and on many occasions sent to his office. In his earlier explanations, Mr. Vandercook told her that he had been busy, that he would get to the matter shortly, and that he would call her. Then, in response to her persistent entreaties, he changed his explanation of the delay, telling her that legal difficulties had arisen; that it was necessary to locate her husband; and that it might be necessary to start a new action. Mr. Vandercook did not explain to his client the true situation--that her divorce action had been dismissed for want of prosecution.
In August, 1967, nearly a year after he had succeeded Mr. Case, Mrs. Branch paid Mr. Vandercook $200 in attorney's fees, informing him that she wished to remarry. She reminded him that she had an infant child to support and, in the meanwhile and at considerable inconvenience to all of them, she had been living with her parents. She contacted Mr. Vandercook repeatedly thereafter and received no explanation for the delay from him nor a promise of action.
Mr. Vandercook had not entered his appearance of record in the Branch divorce file and, therefore, did not receive the superior court clerk's notice of a motion to dismiss the case for want of prosecution. Little or nothing was done by Mr. Vandercook except to make two or three telephone calls trying to locate Mr. Branch. Mr. Branch called him once to find out why Mr. Vandercook was seeking him and on learning that the latter wanted to discuss the divorce, told Mr. Vandercook that there was no case and hung up. Because of this remark, Mr. Vandercook some days later for the first time looked at the clerk's file only to discovery that an order of dismissal for want of prosecution had been previously entered at the instance of the King County Clerk. At no time did Mr. Vandercook attempt to have the order of dismissal vacated, or ever take any action to obtain the entry of a decree of divorce despite the continuous insistence of his client.
After that, in early 1969, Mrs. Branch engaged another attorney, paid him $75 and he, acting as her counsel, had the order of dismissal vacated and a divorce decree entered February 19, 1969. Mr. Vandercook did not offer to refund the $200 fee to Mrs. Branch, but at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hansen v. Wightman
... ... DR 2--110(A) and EC 2--32. See also In re Fraser, 83 Wash.2d 884, 523 P.2d 921 (1974); In re Vandercook, 78 Wash.2d 301, 474 P.2d 106 (1970). Statutory requisites under RCW 2.44.040 and 2.44.050 for the substitution of counsel that have appeared in court proceedings must also be met. 7 Lipp v. Hendrick, 65 Wash.2d 505, 397 P.2d 848 (1965). Leave of court is not required as between attorney and ... ...
-
MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AGAINST ANSHCHELL, 09756-9.
... ... the failure to arrive in court when expected, and the failure to notify client that summary judgment had been granted in a case); In re Discipline of Greenlee, 82 Wash.2d 390, 510 P.2d 1120 (1973) (30 day suspension for failure to expeditiously probate an estate); In re Discipline of Vandercook, 78 Wash.2d 301, 474 P.2d 106 (1970) (30 day suspension for neglect and delay in handling of divorce action where attorney had been disciplined on three prior occasions for 9 P.3d 205 similar misconduct); In re Discipline of Burtch, 112 Wash.2d 19, 770 P.2d 174 (1989) (45 day suspension for ... ...
-
In re Juarez
... ... 108. In re Jamieson, 98 Wash.2d 865, 868, 658 P.2d 1244 (1983) (citing In re Johnson, 94 Wash.2d at 662, 618 P.2d 1322 ; In re Vandercook, 78 Wash.2d 301, 304, 474 P.2d 106 (1970) ) ... 109. In re Anschell, 141 Wash.2d at 616-17, 9 P.3d 193 ( citing In re Johnson, 94 Wash.2d 659, 618 P.2d 1322 (1980) (60 day suspension where attorney had received a prior reprimand for neglecting legal matters); In re ... ...
-
Trask, In re, 5221
... ... Other jurisdictions in more recent decisions have found conduct essentially similar to that of respondent to be grossly unprofessional and violative of their respective codes of ethics. In re Vandercook, 474 P.2d 106 (Wash.1970); Simmons v. State Bar of California, 2 Cal.3d 719, 87 Cal.Rptr. 368, 470 P.2d 352 (1970); In re Haller, 248 Ind. 255, 226 N.E.2d 164 (1967); In re Garcia, 89 Ariz. 155, 359 P.2d 499 (1961); In re Williams, 249 Minn. 600, 83 N.W.2d 115 (1957); Stephens v. State Bar of ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...18.4(2) Vanderbeek, In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against, 153 Wn.2d 64, 101 P.3d 88 (2004): 3.4(4), 3.7(4)(e)(ii) Vandercook, In re, 78 Wn.2d 301, 474 P.2d 106 (1970): 8.3(1), 8.3(2) VersusLaw, Inc. v. Stoel Rives, LLP, 127 Wn. App. 309, 111 P.3d 866 (2005), review denied, 156 Wn.2d 1008 (......
-
§8.2 RPC Pertaining to Advocacy
...19, 770 P.2d 174 (1989). In each case, the Supreme Court found the same conduct also violated RPC 1.3 (diligence). 33. In re Vandercook, 78 Wn.2d 301, 304, 474 P.2d 106 (1970) (failure to prosecute a divorce case; 30-day suspension); In re Zderic, 92 Wn.2d 777, 600 P.2d 1297 (1977) (disbarm......
-
Table of Cases
...88 (2004): 9–7 n.35; 9–14 n.19; 9–26 n.185; 12–11 n.44; 12–14 n.71; 14–11 n.27; 16–33 n.319; 16–34 n.320; 16–56; 16–61 Vandercook, In re, 78 Wn.2d 301, 474 P.2d 106 (1970): 5–6; 5–6 n.30; 8–6 n.33; 16–49 Vanderveen, In re, 166 Wn.2d 594, 211 P.3d 1008 (2009): 6–54 n.313; 10–10 n.54; 16–52; ......
-
§5.3 Diligence
...[3]. 25. RLGL §16. 26. Id. cmt. d. 27. RPC 1.3 cmt. [1]. 28. RLGL §16 cmt. d. 29. See RPC 1.3 cmt. [1]; RPC, Preamble [2], [8], [9]. 30. 78 Wn.2d 301, 304, 474 P.2d 106 31. 83 Wn.2d 884, 889, 523 P.2d 921 (1974), overruled on other grounds by In re Boelter, 139 Wn.2d 81, 985 P.2d 328 (1999)......