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

attorneynegligencerespondent
damagesattorneyprosecutorrespondent

Related Cases

Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 51 Fed.R.Serv.3d 694
View Case »
Dynamic 3D Geosolutions, LLC v. Schlumberger Ltd. (Schlumberger N.V.), Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2015 WL 4578681
View Case »
Paciulan v. George, 229 F.3d 1226, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8430, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,231
View Case »
Klaiber v. Orzel, 148 Ariz. 320, 714 P.2d 813
View Case »
In re Dresser Industries, Inc., 972 F.2d 540, 1992-2 Trade Cases P 69,952
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Fraser, 83 Wash.2d 884, 523 P.2d 921

Facts

The respondent, an attorney admitted to practice in Washington since 1958, faced complaints from the Disciplinary Board of the Washington State Bar Association regarding his handling of several client matters. These included delays in pursuing claims, failure to communicate effectively with clients, and neglect in filing necessary accountings. The respondent had previously received a formal reprimand for similar conduct, indicating a pattern of negligence and procrastination in his professional duties.

The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the state of Washington on December 9, 1958. He served for a year as a clerk in this court and thereafter became a deputy prosecutor for Kitsap County, and a part-time private practitioner. He was a partner in the firm of Wallace & Fraser for a period of 9 years and in September 1969 became a sole practitioner. The respondent has previously received a formal reprimand from the Board of Governors for a violation of Canon 21 in neglecting to process a client's claim with punctuality and expedition, as a result of which the client lost his legal right to claim damages against a third party.

Issue

Did the respondent's conduct in handling client matters constitute violations of the Canons of Professional Ethics warranting disciplinary action?

Did the respondent's conduct in handling client matters constitute violations of the Canons of Professional Ethics warranting disciplinary action?

Rule

The court applied the Canons of Professional Ethics, particularly focusing on the obligations of attorneys to act with diligence, communicate effectively with clients, and file necessary accountings in a timely manner.

The court applied the Canons of Professional Ethics, particularly focusing on the obligations of attorneys to act with diligence, communicate effectively with clients, and file necessary accountings in a timely manner.

Analysis

The court analyzed the respondent's actions in light of the Canons, concluding that his delays and failures to communicate with clients resulted in significant anxiety and frustration for those clients. The court noted that while some complaints did not warrant severe penalties, the overall pattern of neglect and procrastination justified censure. The court emphasized that attorneys must prioritize their clients' interests and handle their affairs with reasonable diligence.

The court analyzed the respondent's actions in light of the Canons, concluding that his delays and failures to communicate with clients resulted in significant anxiety and frustration for those clients.

Conclusion

The court approved the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board, censuring the respondent for his conduct in multiple matters and emphasizing the importance of diligence and promptness in legal practice.

The court approved the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board, censuring the respondent for his conduct in multiple matters and emphasizing the importance of diligence and promptness in legal practice.

Who won?

The Washington State Bar Association prevailed in the disciplinary proceeding, as the court upheld the censure against the respondent for his negligent conduct.

The Washington State Bar Association prevailed in the disciplinary proceeding, as the court upheld the censure against the respondent for his negligent conduct.

You must be