Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneylawyerdepositionhearingmotionregulation
lawyersubpoenacompliance

Related Cases

Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 33 Fed.R.Serv.2d 704, 2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 523
View Case »
In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 57 USLW 2212
View Case »
Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 67 S.Ct. 1249, 91 L.Ed. 1546, 1 Media L. Rep. 1310
View Case »
In re Disciplinary Action Curl, 803 F.2d 1004, 10 Fed.R.Serv.3d 822
View Case »
Taylor v. F.D.I.C., 132 F.3d 753, 328 U.S.App.D.C. 52
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Scannell, 169 Wash.2d 723, 239 P.3d 332

Facts

In 2005, the Washington State Bar Association began investigating attorney John Scannell for grievances related to conflicts of interest from representing multiple clients without obtaining written consent and for aiding a suspended lawyer in practicing law. Scannell failed to cooperate with the investigation, delaying responses, refusing to appear for depositions, and filing numerous frivolous motions to obstruct the proceedings. The hearing officer found that Scannell had negligently violated conflict of interest rules and intentionally violated rules requiring cooperation, leading to a recommendation for disbarment.

In 2005, the Washington State Bar Association (Bar) began investigating grievances against John Scannell in two separate matters. One involved conflicts of interest arising from representing multiple clients and from a business transaction with a client, for which conflicts Scannell had not obtained written informed consent from the clients.

Issue

Did attorney John Scannell violate professional conduct rules regarding conflicts of interest and cooperation in disciplinary proceedings, and what is the appropriate sanction?

Does the record support the Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each count?

Rule

Attorneys have an affirmative duty to comply with disciplinary requests and investigations, and failure to do so can result in sanctions, including disbarment, especially if the violations are intentional.

ELC 5.3(e) and 5.5(c) establish a lawyer's affirmative duty to comply with disciplinary requests and investigations. Such compliance is vital.

Analysis

The court determined that Scannell's repeated delays and refusals to cooperate with the disciplinary process demonstrated an intent to frustrate the proceedings. His actions, including filing frivolous motions and failing to provide requested documents, were seen as attempts to obstruct the investigation. The court upheld the Board's conclusion that Scannell's behavior constituted intentional violations of the rules requiring cooperation.

The record clearly supports this finding. Scannell's attempts to avoid subpoenae revealed his intent to delay and frustrate the proceedings.

Conclusion

The court upheld the Board's unanimous decision to disbar Scannell, concluding that his actions posed a serious threat to the integrity of the legal profession and self-regulation.

The Board unanimously voted to disbar Scannell.

Who won?

The Washington State Bar Association prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the disbarment recommendation based on Scannell's intentional violations and lack of cooperation.

The Board concluded that Scannell had intentionally violated the rules requiring cooperation in disciplinary proceedings and that the presumptive sanction is disbarment.

You must be