You are on page 1of 104

e a

I BETORS rgE EBE[VE


DISCIPLINARY BOARD
2 Or fHE 00T 1? lS3
WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
3
FEVIEW CO$ilIrTEE TWO ul/.s.B.A.
4
CompLainant Frank Ruano
a
Attorney Emily Hansen
6
A report on the investigation of the above complaint was con-
I
sid.ered, by Review Conunittee of the Disciptrinary Board
o
(,
n4
on K. . Based upon this review, and pur*
9
Euant authorlt,y of Rule 2.4(d) of the Rules for Lawyer Disci
t0
pIi-ne,
tl
IT ID ORDERED:
L2
( ) That the cor*trllaint be dismissed.
13
( ) That the complai.nt is dismissed. An advisory letter wi
14
Pg sent. to the-lawyer cautioning the, Lawyer i*girai"g
his or her conduct, pursuant to RLD 5.6.
r5
That investigation and review of the connpraint is defer
r6 ed pending civil or criminal 1itigation.
17 Shat further investigation should be cond,ucted in the
area of
IB

19
K - rhat a hearj.ng should- be .her{ on the allegations of. the
complaint 7 r ttr air{tj T6, *t u,r ( c,ccour,* u i ,,ia-k'n,, *l<
" ^",,./
20 ( ) other: -' I /
2t
,.,
t3///
23 DAfED this day or &|A-h /r , re83
*&

25

26

27 rperson,
o
Wesnwcrou Srem Ban AssooATroN
505 Madison Street
Srarrm, WnssrxcroN 98 1 04
t o
I BEFORE TI{E
DISCIPLINARY BOARD
EBEIVE m
, og' tHE 00T 18 ml
WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION I

'3 I

W.S.B.A.
4
I

b EMILY R. HANSEN., ORDER APPOINTING I

HEARING PANEL OTFTCER


6 An Attorney at taw. I

B
pursuanr ro RrD z.s {ohN rfu. RoF:p , ,,- , - - i"
9 appointed Hearing Pangl
I
Officer in the above-entitled proceeding.
10 DATED this Mday of , 1e83.
i

ll
t2
13

14
,
15 Address and phone number of the Hearing Panel Officer:
1600 Peoples National Bank Bldg.
l6 Seattle, Washington 98171
(206) 223 1600
17

18

19

20

2t
srct

23

2,'

25

26

2l
ORDER APPOINTING TIEARITG PANEL OTFICER
Wesl{rNcroN Srnru Bm AssocnrroN
505 Madison Street
_ :

Srertre, Wnsamcrou 98 I 04
o o
I BEFORE THE tEtrrvtrB
2
DISC]PLINARY BOARD
tlCT 19 ffi- L

WASHINGTON STATE EAR ASSOC]ATION


3
In re
WS.B*
4

b
EMILY R. TANSEN,
FORMAL COMPLAINT
6 An Attorney at Law.

8 Pursuant. to Rule 4.3 of the Rures for Lawye:i Discipline (RLD),


9 the above-named lawyer j-s charged. with acts of misconduct under RLD
i

10 1.1, as set forth below.


11 BACKGROUND AND ADMISSION TO PRACTICE

L2 Respondent Emily :R. Hansen was admitted


to the practice: of law
l3 in the state of wash'ngton on october 25, L|TB At all:itimes
'.1

L4 material to this complaint, she practiced in seattle, King county,

l5 Washington. ,

r6 FACTS REGARDTNG COUNTSI AND II


L7 1. Emily R. Ilansen was the attorney for Frank Ruano in King
l8 Countlz Superior Court 'litigation entitled, Erank'R*.rro and Asso-
l -----'--r'---'-"..--
19 ci?tes v. Enga, Cause No. 845423. The suit for a sales commj-ssion

20 was brought agai.nst the Engas as sellers of rear property who

21 refus,ed to convey to a wirling buyer.


,o1 January 22, 1980, judgment
22 was rendered in, favor.of Ruano in the ant'ount of ,$12,346.g4. The

23 defendant appealed.
-,
24 2. The Court of Appeals upheJ-d the trial court's decision
25 and the de.f endalrts petitioned fof l::eview ito ,. ,he Filashington State

26 supreme court. rn' lirte May, rgg2, J-t was anticipated that the
27

FORMAL COMPLAINT
%.snmcrox Sraru Ban AssoctATIoN
Page 1 of 6
505 Madison Street
Srerrrp;'WesHrNcroN 98 1 04
o O.

1 appellate process would be completed and the judgment could soon be


.t

2 satisf i-ed.
3 3. On June 2t Lg82, there was a meeting between.Frank Ruano
4 and Emily'Hansen. At that meet,inE, Mr'. Ruano questioned the amount
5 of Ms.rHansenrs fees. These fees were to be paid when the defen-
6 dants satisfied the judgment against them. In response to that
I
questionirg, Emily Hansen mailed her client copies of her time
l

I .:
I 4. On June 25, 1982, the Engas paid the judgment with a :

l0 cashier's,check payable to the Clerk of the King County Superior


ll Cour,t. That same date, Ms. Hansen, as R uano's attorney, -' signed, a
t2 satisfaction of judgment
l3 5. ,,On June 29,';L982,, the.. King County:.superior tcourt Clerk
L4

15 interest, to Emily Hansen. . Ms.: Hansen deposited these funds in her


16 trust account with the Bank of California, account number A462077.

L7 On June 29, tgT2, Ms. Hansen wrote to the attorney for the company

18 which had posted a supersedeas bond for the Engas, informing them

19 that the judgment had been satisfied. She sent a copy of that
20 letter .to her client, Mr. Ruano.

2l 6. On the same date, Hansen sent a second letter to Mr.


,, Ruano which informed him that the funds to pay the judqment had
23 been received and that there would be a meeting to disburse to : ::,:"

2.1$Mr. Sidney Clinch, the real estate sale,sman, .that por.tion of the
25 trust funds due hjm as his part of the sales commission.

216 7. Alsor orr June 29, 1982, Ms. Hansen wrote the following
27 trust account checks to herself:

EORMAL COMPLAINT
WesnwcroN Stntn Ben AssoctATIoN
Page 2 of 6
505 Madison Street
Srlrrr.B, WlssrNcroN 98 I 04
o o
I
o

l0
ll
t2
13

14

t5
t6
t7
t8
19 ,
l-0r. As indicated above in paragraph '7 , Sidney Clinch was the
:

20 real estate salesman, who arranged the sale which the Enqas refused

2t to carry out. As a result, he had. a financial interest '.in the


,, outcome of RuU-y. jnge, the lawsuit in which respondent Emily R.
23 Hansen represented Frank Ruano

?/l 11. Sidney CLinch was not a client


'':'
of Emily R. Hansen.
25 J 2. Beginning April 6,. 19,81, without authority from l{r. Ruano

26 Ms. Hansen began providing Mr. Clinch with copies of letters she
27 wrote on Mr. Ruano!s behalf. In addition, she would write letters
LAINT
Page 3 of 6
WesnwcroN Sraru Bn AssoctATIoN
505 Madison Street
Srlrrm, WnsHrNcroN 98 I 04
1
about Ruano v.-!qgq to both Mr. Ruano and Mr. Clinch.
:.1'

2 " 13, This conduct continued despite l4r. Ruanols protest, until
3 JuIy" l-982, when M::.,' Ciinch recerved'the funds due him.
4 FACTS REGARDING COUNT IV

L4. ' During the month of Ju111, L982, tls. Hansen was also
al. -.
,5 ' .

6 representing Sharon Charles in a suit againSt Pacific Management


I Company. On July L5, L982, Ms. HanSen sent her client a letter

8 notifying her that the lawsuit had been settled, and that Ms.
9 Charles should sign a release and the settlement check which Ms.
l0 Hansen had received.. i:

ll 15. On JuIy- L9:, 1983, Ms. Charles si-gned the release and the
L2 settlement check. The'funds were then deposited into Ms. Hansenrs
l3 trust account,at the Bank of California. At the r.same, time, MS.
L4 Charles was given a statement showing'the amount claimed as Ms.

15 Hansen'rs fees.' 'The statement did not indicate that the fees had
been paid. .t
r6
'l

L7 16. On the same d.y, July 19, t9}2t Ms. Hansen wrote the
.: .

18 following trust account checks: '

l9 check'#501' to Emily: R. H'bnsen for


zto check #:502, to Emily R. 'I{ansen for
2l These checks werei then negotiated.
22 17, fhe balance of the funds
. : I . , .:, .l

23 disbursed to her unti-I l,ts. Hansenl,

24 $10r005.26 on Julf ,27, L982.


,',Ms';

25 to her client until July 27, Lg}zr,

26 sure that
I'the settlement draft had
l

27

FORM.&t COMPLAINT rIi

Page 4 of6: WlstuNcrox'Srarr ,Ben AssocBrtor


505'Madison Street
SBartrr, WasgrNcroN 98 I 04
o a
1
18. The firsL written communication indicating that Ms. Hansen
, had removed her fees from the trust account was a statement she
'

3 sent to her,clj-ent dated August 10, 1982. i

4 coullr r i

b 19. Respondent Hansen's conduct in failing to hold funds in


6 trust when she knew her right to them was disputed violates RLD 1.1
7
(i) in that it violates the following provision of the Code of
i

B Professional Responsibility: DR 9-LA2 (A) (2), Irequirins disputed


9 funds to be held in trust until lhe dispute is resolvedl .

10 I COUNT II
#

ll 20. in the Ruano matter, in takin,


Respondent Hansen's conduct

t2 funds out of trust to pay her claimed'rfees without notifying her


l3 client prior" to removing the tru.st funds; and failing to'provide
14 contempor4n€oUsrwritteq accounts, violates RLD 1.1(i), in that it
l5 violates the following provisions of the Code of Professional
t:
16 Responsibility: DR 9-102 (A) 'and DR 9-10,2(B), Iregarding the
t7 handling of client fundsl.
l8 COUNT III

I9 2L. Ms. Hansenrs conduct in sending Sidney Clinch copies of


20 letters she wrote on Mr. Ruano's behalf and in writing letters to

21 both Mr. Ruano'and Mr. Clinch violates RLD 1.1(i), in that it


22 violates the following prov5-sions of the Code of Professional

23 Responsibility: DR 4-101 (B) , [prohibiting the revelation of client

2A confj-dences and secretsl . '

25 COUNT IV

26 22. Respondent Hansen's conduct in the Charles matter in


27 taking funds out of trust to pay her claimed fees without notifying

Page 5 of WasnwcroN Sr.lrp Bln AssoctATIoN


6
505 Madison Street
Spemrp, Wasun*croN 98 I 04
I her client prlor to removing. the trugt f.unds; failing to provide
. :l
2 contemporaneous written accounts; and taking funds from trust befor
,3 the instrgrment depositing those funds had cleared the banking
process violates RLD 1..1(i),,'in that it viola.tqsithe. following
.

4
.l .i .

bprovisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility; DR 9-102 (A)


6 and DR 9-L02 (B) [regaqd,tng the-handling of c]ient fundsl .'
I THEREFORE; state bar counsel requests that a hearing be held
I under the Rules for Lawyer Discipline and that such disposition of
.:
9 this matter be made as warranted by the facts and the law.' possi-
l0 b1e dispositions may include imposition of discipline, imposition
:

It of probati.onary conditionsr ordering restitution, and assessment of


t2 the costs of these pg:oceedings.
I3 DAIED this dk, of october, 1e83.
t4
l5
I6
L7

t8
19

20

2t
22

23

24

25

26

27

TORMAX COMPLAINT
Page 6 ofG %,suiNcrou Srlrr Ban AssocrATroN
505 Madison Street
' Srerrrr,WessrrcroN 98104
a o
I B&TON8 THE DISCIPIffiILRY

-,
or THE WASHINGEON STATE BAR ffi#_5nY5"X=UJ
:i In fA v[l.s.B.A.
EMILY R. HANSEN
4 NOTICE TO A}ISWER AT.TD
I{TTCE OF ITEARITSG OrrrCER
D An Attorney at Lanr.

6 to: ?he a"bov€ nam€d attoraey at lar


I You are notified. tllat a for:mal complaint, has been filed against
I Yotrr a coPy of '*hich is serred upon you with this notice. you ate
I notified that you rurrst file your anslder to the complaint within 20
10 s of, the date of Eervice pr by filing the original and one
l1 copy of, your anslrer at the off,ice of the Washington State Bar AEsoci
tz ation; at the eddreEs given below, and by filing one copy with the
IS hearing off,ieer at the addreEs given below. Failure to f,ile an
14 aflEwer may result in the imposition of a disciplinary saoction
15 against you. upon the f,iling of your answer, or in the case of
16 failure ta anBlrrer withia 20 days, further proceedj.ngs will be had
L7 in accordance with the Rules
for Latryer Discipliner o$d shall be-
18 come public pursuetnt
to rrrle 11.1.
19 You are f,urther notifj.ed, that the hearing officer ,assigned to
20 te:.s proceediag is:
John N. Rupp
2l I;ffi ;;";iEI *".ional Bank Brdg
Seattle, Wa. 99171
,,
fr liodi fiz 1600
ta
d
DAIED this day of_*___O,_c,tsber , 1983.
T{ASSINGTON TAIE BAR ASSOCTATl0N
7l
?5
,&,,
Coun
26 telephone (205) 622-6026
27

YlsuxcroN SrArE Be.n. Assocretrox


505 Madircn Street
oa AA
LECAL DfiFAHTTEII?

DIFECT LINE
(208) 622€028

Wrsruxcrox Srrre Ben AssocrATroN


5O5 MADISON ST., SEITTTLE, WASHINGTON 98t 04
ROgEFT T. FARRELL STAFF ATTORNEYS
GENEFAL CoIJNSEL
NOBERT D. IUELOEN
RHEA J. ROLFE
LEL ITD G. RTPTEY October 2A , 19 8 3 TARK W. IIUEI{STER
SEilIOH STAFF ATTORNEY OEEOBAH OOWD

Mr. John N. Rupp


Attorney at taw
1500 Peoples National. Bank 81d9.
Seattle, WA 98171
Re: In re Emily n. Hansen
Dear Mr. Rupp:
r am preased to inform you that you have been appointed as a
hearing officer for a lawyer disciprine case. Enclosed is a copy
of the order of appointment.
Generally, a hearing officer is appointed prior to the pre-
paration of a Formal Complaint, which conmences disciplinary
proceedings. Now t,hat the Formal complaint has been iirea, you
are being provided with a copy. Ms. Hansen has indj.cated trrlt
she will- file her answer in the near future.
Because Ms. Hansen has plans to leave the United States in
early November, she would like to have an early hearing date.
We have discussed tentative dates and November 1, 1983 or November g,
1983 are agreeable. I would imagine that this proceeding will take
at least one-half a day and probably loncler. ff you couid set a
date, then I will make suitable arrangements and provide notice.
Proceedlngs of this kind aie governed by the Ru1es for Lawyer
Discipline and the Code of Professional Responsibility. since ihe
Rules for Lawyer Discipline were recently enacted, if you do not
have a copy of those ruIes, please let me know and one wilL be
provided.
The Diseiplinary Board has asked me to inform you that it
their preference that as long as the matter you are hearingr is is
pending, You should not undertake representation of respondent
attorneys in other disciplinary acti-ons.
t

Mr. John N. Rupp


October 2A, 1983
Page f\lro

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.


I can Provide you w1!! any general infoimatioir c6i:cerning the-rf
role of a hearing officer, prease feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,

Leland G. Ripley
State Bar Counsel
LGR: gp

Enclosures
cc: Emily R, Hansen
James Mi1ler
I -
2

3 In re
or,#'fiilfi ,fr8*"i':$ffi'gi*'^333x-ffiq.,[
;:: l
4 EMILY R. HANSEN AcKNowl,socumult, o$t&$fl .
D An At,torney at Law. )
)
6

I The undersigned respondent hereby acknowledges service of the


I Formal Complaint and Notice to Answer in this matter, and agrees
9 that the same will be deemed to have been personally served on him

l0 or her on the date that this Acknowledgement is filed in the office


ll of the Wash State Bar Association.
l2 not waive (c_1rq1e one and initj.al) ttre reqr:irement
13 of RLD 12.1(d) that all service by maiL in these proceedings be by

t4 certified mai1. I understand that if I waive this requi.rement,


l5 state bar counsel waives the same requirement with regard to me,
r6 and that all service by mail will be by first class mai1.

t7 DA?ED this e4e day of ocrober , 1983.


l8
r9
20

2L

,t

23

al
25

26

27

WlssmcroN Srerr Bln AssocrATroN


505 Madison Street
Sretrrr, We,sruNcroN 98 I 04
IE]EEE[VEIRI
1
BEFoRE rHE lI\ ocr 2 s 1983. IUJ
D]SCIPLINARY BOARD
2
-iiin
OF THE
3
wASHTNGToN sri,is AssocrArrW.S.B.A.
4
fn re
5
EMILY R. HANSEN,
ANSWER
6
An At.torney at Law.

I
the Respondent herein, EI\,IILY R. HANSEN, and,
COMES NOW
I
pursuant to Rule 4.5 of the Rules for Lawyer Discipline (Rf,O1 ,
10
admits, denies and alleges as follows:
11
BACKGROUND AND ADM]SSION TO PRACTICE
12
the allegations concerning her admission
Respondent admits
13
to practice law in the State of Washington.
14
FACTS REGARDING COUNTS I AND II
15
1. Respondent. admits the allegations of Paragraph 1.
16
2. Respondent admits the allegations of Paragraph 2.
17
3. Respondent admit.s that a meeting between Frank Ruano
18
and Emily R. Hansen occurred on June 2, 1982, but specifically
19
deni-es that Mr. Ruano questioned the amount of the fees charged
20
by Respondentts 1aw firm- At the referenced meeting, Mr. Ruano
21
asserted for the first time malpractice by a prior attorney, which
22
a1Iegedly occurred three and one-ha1f years before; stated that
23
the form of Respondentts firrn!s monthly statements, sent to Mr.
24
Ruano for some five years without comment, were improper in failing
25
to designate the time spent on each service; and stated he had
26
ANSWER . 1

LAW OFFICES
IHOM, NAVONI, PIERSON, RYDER & MAJOR. INC,, P.S.
3737 BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 981 64
TELEPHONE: (206) 623"8433
1
never sought the services of Respondent. No challeqge to the
2
time spent nor the chargres therefore was raised. Respondent
3
admits that certain tj-me records were sent to l4r. Ruano following
4
the meetirg, but not due to a request for same, but only in re-
5
sponse to lr{r, Ruanor s off-hand cornrnent concerning the form of
6
billings. Thirty or more of daid bilrings had been sent to Mr.
7
Ruano by Respondent personnally without any reaction. Respondent
8
specifically denies that. the fees for services rend.ered to Mr.
I Ruano were due on satisfaction of the subject judgrment. said
10
fees were due and payable on receipt of each monthly statement
11
from the commencement of the litigation in lg78 to its conclusion.
12
4. Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 4.
13
5. Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 5.
14
6. Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 6,
15
7. Respondent denies that the trust account check No. 4g2
16
for $7,712.00 was written or negotiated by Respondent. Said
17
check was payable to Thom, Navoni, Pierson, Ryder & Major, which
18
negotiat.ed the same. Respondent denies that no notice of this
19
transfer from trust was given to Mr. Ruano. Respondent advised
20
Mrs. Ruano, his wifer on June 30, L982, of this payment out of
21
trust of the outstanding fees and costs accrued. Respondent
22
admits that the fees paid to Thom, Navoni-, Pierson, Ryder & Major
23
represented the fees outstanding on the June 7, L982, statement
24
to Mr. Ruano, together with the fees and costs accrued through
25
that month.
26
ANSWER - 2

LAW OFFICES
THOM, NAVONI, PIERSON. RYDER & MAJOR. INC,. P.S
3737 BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 981 64
TELEPHONE: (206) 629-8433
1
B. Respondent admits the meeting of July 1-2, Lggz, occurred,
2
but denies that Mr. Ruano had not previously been notified of
3
the disbursement from trust.
4
9. Respondent admits that for the first time on July 72,199
5
following Mr. Ruanors representation by Thorn, Navoni et aI. in
6
the subject litigation for more than four years, Mr. Ruano express
7
his opinion that the fees charged him had been excessive. Re-
I spondent, admj-ts further that Mr. Ruano protested the removal of
I fees from trust, although he had been advised of this through his
10
wifer orl June 30, 1982.
11
FACTS REGARDING COUNT TTI
12
I0. Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 10.
13
11. Respodent admits the allegations of paragraph 11.
14
iJ2. Respondent specifically denies that she had no authority
15
from Mr. Ruano to apprise I4r. clinch of the status of Ruano v.
16
E4ga, a controversy in which he was the critical witness and in
17
whieh he had a considerable fi-nancial interest.
18
13. Respondent specifically denies that Mr. Ruano has ever
19
protested to Respondent regarding the providing of copies of statu
2A
letters on the subject litiqration to Mr. Clinch.
21
FACTS REGARDTNG COUNT IV
22
L4. Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 14.
23 15. Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 15 and
24 further states that on Jury L9, LgB2, when Ms. charles endorsed
25 the settlement draft in Respondent's office, Respondent advised
26 ANSWER - 3

LAW OFFICES
IHOM, NAVONI. PIERSON, RYOER & MAJOR, INC,. P.S.
3737 BANK OF CALIFOBNIA CENTEF
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 981 54
TELEPHONE; (206) 623-8433
1
her that the fees and cost.s evideneed in the JuIy L9, Lgg2,
2 statement. wouLd be paid out of the settlement funds.
3 16. Respondent admits the allegations of paragra6rh 16.
4 L7. Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 17.
5
18. Respondent denies the al-legations of paragraph 18 as
6 Ms. charles was notified by statement of July 19, ]]9lz, by trans-
7
mittal letter of July 2'7, 7982,, and. by the regular monthly state-
8 ment on August 10, Lg82, that the fees associated with her liti-
I gation had been paid
10
COUNT T
11
19. Respondent specifically denies that she knew a dispute
12 existed as to her law firmts entitlement to fees and costs from
13 Mr. Ruano. Over a four and one-half year course of representing
14 Mr. Ruano in Ruano v. Enga and after submitting more than fifty
15 statements to Mr. Ruano, neither Respondent nor any member of her
16 firm was ever apprised of anlz challenge to these fees. The first
17 time Respondent was advised of the nature of this dispute was durin
r8 a fee arbitration hearing before the Bar Association earlier this
19 year, when Mr. Ruano challenged the fees and costs on virtually
20 every statement from Respondentr s office.
21
COUNT fI
22 20. Based on the common practice of her 1aw firm, Respondent
23 understood that she should notify her client when fees and costs
24 were disbursed from her trust account. fn the Ruano matter,
25 Respondent did provide a contemporaneous oral accounting to Mrs.
26 Ruano when the fees were disbursed. A written accounting was pre-
ANSWER . 4
rHoM, NAV.Nr, ,,.htg-:t-tJSEB & MAJ.R, rNc., ps.
3737 BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTEF
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 981 64
TELEPHONE: {206) 623-8493
1 pared on June 29, 1,982, but due to a laek of awareness concerningr
2 the reguirement of a contemporaneous notification and the meeting
3 scheduled in early July, Respondent derivered the accounting to
4 Mr. Ruano at this meeting.
5 COUNT III
6 2L. that she revealed any client confi-
Respondent. denies
7 dences and secrets to Mr. crinch. Mr. clinch, the individual
I most intimately familiar with the subject real estate transaction,
I were merely advised by carbon copy of the status of the litigation
10 during the appellate process, which was a matter of public record.
11
No information whatsoever secured from Mr. Ruano was communicated
12 to Mr. clinch. Respondent emphatically denies that Mr. Ruano
13 has ever, through the present date, complained to Respondent of
14 her sending these copies to Mr. Clinch.
15 COUNT IV
16 22. Respondent denies any misconduct in the Charles litiga-
17 tion and disbursement of settfement funds. Respondent followed
18 the common practice of fellow attorneys in her firm by depositing
19 the settlement draft, then disbursing funds to outstanding fees
20 and costs and advising Ms. Charles of, said disbursement. Respond
21 was unaware of the need to have the draft clear banking channels
22 prior to disbursement to fees, again as learned from her partners.
23 Respondent delayed payment to Ms. Charles of the net recovery to
24 assure that she would have immediately available funds.
25 ANSWER - 5

26

LAW OFFICES
THOM. NAVONI. PIERSON. RYDER & MAJOR, INC P.S.
3737 BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 981 64
TELEPHONE: (206) 623.8433
t--"
1
Having fu11y answered the Formal Complaint herein, Respon-
2 dent asserts'the following Af'firmative Defenses and justifications
3 for the conduct asserted herein:
4 1. Bar counsel fails to state an act of misconduct in Count
5 I as Respondent had no knowledge of a dispute over the fees when
b the. trust funds were disbr:rsed, as Mr. Ruano challenged the rea-
7 sonable value of Lhe services rendered to him for the first time
I during a hearj-ng before the Bar Association months following the
9 disbursement.
10 2. Bar counsel fails to state an act of misconduct in Counts
11 fI and IV as Respondent acted in reasonable reliance on the common
12 practice of fe11ow attorneys and the bookkeeper in her 1aw firm
13 and perhaps based on a lack of experience in disbursing the trust
14 funds in the Ruano and Charles litigation.
15 3. Bar counsel fails to state an act of misconduct in Count
16 fII as all information conveyed to Mr. Clinch was secured from
17 him; as the primary witness at trial or was a matter of public
18 record. Further, Mr. Ruano authorized Respondent's providing of
19 the status letters to Mr. Clinch.
20 4. Immediately prior to the activation of this Complaint
21 against Respondent, Mr. Ruano reached an accord and satisfaction
22 of any and all claims against Respondent in exchange for payment
23 to Mr. Ruano of, substantial consideration-
24 5. Bar counselts actions in pursuing the present claim again
25 Respondent is barred based on commitments to Respondent and her
26 ANSWER - 6

LAW OFFICES
THOM, NAVONI, PIERSON, RYDER 8 MAJOR, INC,, P,S
3737 BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENIER
SEATTLE. WASHINGION 981 64
TELEPHONE: (206) 023-8433
1
counsel in early Julyr 1983, that this matter would be terminated
2 on or before October l, 1983, in consideration of Respondent's
3 personal commitments and the imminent termination of her 1aw
4 practice and departure from the country.
5 RESPONDENTIS ADDRESS
6
Respondent states that she maintains her'Iaw practice at
7
Thom, Navoni, Pierson, Ryder & Major, 373,7 Bank of California
I Center, Seatt1e, WA 98L64, and that all further pleadings and
I documents may be served upon her at said address.
10 WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that Counts I through IV of the
11 Formal Complaint be dismissed and that Respondent be granted such
12 other and further relief as may be deemed just and equitable.
13 Dated this -?5& day of October, 1983.
14

15

16

17 Respondent
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 ANSWER - 7

26

LAW OFFICES
THOM. NAVONI, PIERSON, RYOER & MAJOR. INO., P,S,
3737 BANK OF CALIFOBNIA CENTER
SEATILE. WASHINGlON 981 64
TELEPHONE: (206) 623-8433
L
I BEFORE THE
D]SCTPLINARY BOARD
2 OF THE
WASIIINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
3

4 ln re )
)
J EMILY R. HANSEN, )
) NOTICE OF HEARTNG
6 An Attorney at Law. )
)
I )

I
9 TO: EMILY R. IIANSEN, Respondent -'
10 By agrreement the hear+ng i,n Lhis matter has been set for
'l

II I.Iovember 1, 1983, j-n Room 631, f,yon,Bui-lding, Third and James Stree 3 f

t2 Seattle, Washington 9BLO4, beginning at 9:00 a.m. or as soon there-


l3 after as the matter can be heard.
t4 DATED this 25th day of October, 1983.
l5
16

t7 I,,eland G.
State Bar Counsel
1B

19

20

21 RTIFICATH OF.
I CERTIFY THAT,I MAILED A COPY
,,
oF THE FCIREGOTNG 4 eli c4 TO
23 , RESPONDENTIGEUilSE&--
€OE.RESPENDE TT AT
24 ?P/07
EERilFTED/FI RST CLASS MAI L,

25 ON THE

26

27

NOTICE OF HEARTT\TC

505 Madison Street


: .t, r r, ,SEATTLe,WagnmbtoN98,104i :,,'-'i.
. r L' NOV t l9&B
1 BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD
oF rHE I/'ASHINGf,.N srArE BAR ASS*ro*rTy.S.B.A.
, t:.

3 Inre )
i
4 EMrLy R. HANSEN, i{ p,*I^:gyl:p"'s HEARTNG
MEMORANDUM i

I
b An Attorney at Law. )
'I )
:t
6 I

8 STATEMENT OF' THE CASE

9 This attorney disciplinary proceeding involves the mishandlinq


10 of client'funds and breach of confidentiality.

t1 : The evidence at the, hearing will show that respondent, while


t2
:acting as:attornelr for Erank Ruano, re.ceived g14r828.96 of l,tr.
13 Ruanors money. oe June,29, L982, these funds were deposited into

t4 her trust account. On the same day that the funds were deposited,
15 without authority from her'crient and while she knew her fees

l6 were in dispute, Ms. Hansen wrote trust account checks disbursi-ng


:

t7 her fees and .. costs.


.' There was no'wr.itten accounting provided to
:

I8 Mr. Ruano.
---_-----

19

20 Mr. Ruano did no,t know that Ms,. Hansen had made these trust
2t disbursementsunti1Ju1yl2,1'982.
oo On that date, Mr. Ruano again protested these. trust disburse-
.-j

23 ments. Despj-te these protests, I{s. Hansen did not return the funds
.:
?A to the trust account. :

''-l
25

26 on behalf of another client, Sharon Charles. These funds trvere


.

27 'deposited. to I4s. Hansen's.trust account on July 19, :-gg2. That


S HEARING MEMORANDUM
Page..I of e
WnsHINcroN Srarr Bln AssocrATroN
505 Madison Street
Spl,rtlr, Wesgrl.rcroN 98 I 04
I same date, Ms.'Hansen wrote herself two trust checks to pay her
, fees and costs. The check to pay the client's portion of the funds
3
due her was not written until JuIy 27, tgT2. Ms. Hansen has stated

4
that this delay of eight days was required to obtain notification
5
that the settlement draft had cleared. the banking process and the
6
fund.s were available.

I
There is a dispute, but the better evidence will show that Ms.

I Hansen, wj-trrlout.authority from Mr. Ruano, began to send Sidney

9
Cli-nch, 'a person with a financial stake in the legal matter on
l0 which she represented Mr. Ruano, copies of letters she wrote on her
ll client's behalf. She continued to do so even after Mr. Ruano
L2
protested her conduct.
l3 This memorandum is provided in order to outline the 1egal
t4 issues surrounding Ms. Hansen's mishandling of client funds and her
l5 breach of con. fidentiality.
ARGUMENT
16

L7
I. EMILY HANSEN MISAPPROPRIATED CLIENT FUNDS.

l8 The $14r828.96 Emily Hansen obtained from the clerk of the

t9 King County Superi-or Court were not her monies. The entire sum

20 belonged to Frank Ruano. In addition, the entire sum..received on


I '. .' . . i

2L behalf of Sharon Charles belonged to that client. This basic


22 principle is the reason why the funds_ had to be placed into the
23 attorney trust account.
24 Once an attorney has received funds on behalf of a client,

25 those funds are held in a fiduciary capacity. As a fiduciary, the


26 attorney owes the client a duty of the utmost honesty and good
27 faith. As the Supreme Court recently stated: "The relationship
BAR COUNSELIS MEMORANDUM
Page 2 of 6
WasunvcroN Srarr Ben AssocIATIoN
505 Madison Street
Srarrm, WISHTNGToN 98I 04
.

t between attorney and client iS 'one of the strongest fiduciary

2 relationships 'known to law. ' ' .-.,:


In. .re Sawyer , 98 Wn. 2d 584 , 586,

3 656 P.2d 503 ,.(1983), quotj.ng In re Beekley, 6 Wn.rrd 4LO, 423, lO7
:: -:-------'-*-*-T i

4 P.2d, tagT (1940) . '

b Since':1]1s funds Ms. Hansen received were Mr. Ruano's and since
,.

6 she held them as a fiduciary, none of those funds could be removed


7 from the trust account without Mr. Ruanors authority.
8 When Ms. Hansen paid herself the fees she claimed were owed,
9 she did not have any authority to remove the funds. rn complete
l0 disregard of her lack of authority, she took money belonging to her
11 client. she d.id. not provide any .contemporaneous notice to her
t2 client of the.removal of his funds from her, trust account. The.
r3 first written notice of the removgl of the fuhAs was provided on
14 July L2, L9B2

l5 tr{hea Ms. Hansen acted,without authority from her client, she '

r6 also acted in violation of DR 9-102(A) (2). Whi1e she now disputes

t7 this fact, Ms. Hansen was aware at the tj-me she took her fees that
18
,the amount of her bill was disputed.. DR 9-I02(A) (2) clearly pro-

19 vides that. trust. funds "belonging to a lawyer orl 1", firm,, may be

20 withdrawn from the trust account "unless the right of the lawyer...

2l to receive it is disputed by the client, in which event the disputed


22 portion shaI1 not be withdrawn until the dispute 1s finally resolved
23 See In rg_Mcflurray, 99 Wn.2d g2O, p.2d, (1983).
24 The lword . !'dispute" must be def ined in the context of the

25 fiduciary relati.onshi-p between attorney and client. rn rn re


,]
26 McMurrayi; supra, the attorney retained client funds paid to him in
27 trust. He claimed these funds were an earned fee. The supfeme
BAR COUNSELIS MEMORANDUM
Page 3 of 6:
wAsHINGToN Statr Bln AssoctATIoN
505 Madison Street
Sparrlp, WassrNcroN 98 I 04
3

I
9

10

11

\2
l3
t4
15

t6
t7
18

r9

20

2L

22 they can nonetheless endorse a settlement draft made out jointly to


23 them and the lawyer without fear that the lawyer can simply take
24 whatever she wants from the proceeds. Unless the rul-e is strictllr
25 en'forced., a reasonabl",e client will not give such an endorsement
26 without the creation of a new fiduciary, a third party escrow to
27 protect the client from the lawyer.
BAR COUNSEL'S r'l,*rvrwtru
MEMORANDUM
WAsnrNcroN STATE Bln AssocIATIoN
Page 4 of, 6
505 Madison Street
SBlrrrB, WesstxcroN 98 1 04
o o
1
Mr. protection from Emily Hansen. I]4s. Hanse
Ruano needed such

2 acted di-shonestly with regard to Ruano's funds, trea,ting them as


3 her own rather than his and usingrthem in the face of rhis very
4 vocal protests. Her actions show a fundamentai- flaw in her concept
D ofthelawyerasafiduciary,:andmeritseriousdiscipline.
6

l II. EMILY HANSEN REVEALED CLIENT SECRETS.

I
9

l0
11

T2

t3
L4

15

l6
17

18

r9
20

2T

22

23

2A

25

26

27

BAR COUNSELIS M EM o RAN''trpX',r*ulBl


Page 5 of 6
i;#:J,^$*:?"cIArIoN
: ': SrarrI,u,lillsHlNcroN 98104
o o
1,
the information or the fact that others share the knowledgie. I "
2 In re McMurray, 99 Wn. 2d 920, 928 | P.2d (1983), quoting
3 EC 4-4.
4

b CONCLUSION

Emily Hansenrs conduct c,,[eai.lyrand seriousllr violated the


t'

I Code of Professional,Responsibility.

I DArED this 3l*d.ay of october, 1983.

r0 Respectfully
11

t2
r3

I4
15

r6

T7

l8
19

20

21

22

23

24

z5

26

27

HEARING MEMORANDUM
Page 6 of 6
Wessnlctgl p1o:t Ber. AssocrArroN
505 Madison Street
SrarrrB, WnsumoroN 98 I 04
RTIFICATE
I CERTiFY THAT I MAILED A COP\T
FoHcciNG fruqb,rff,eo,rd,t &.e . rc
FOR-RESFeT+Bf$I Al'
R5$THUts
eE+{IiF+E9, f I [3T C i_f 'ir *+r.Dc. 26520
onr rHe 6\( D.,Ly c1: s
v[l.s.B.A.
{WE6I*ffiSMHE_DISCIPLINARY BoARD
S.TATI
OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

In re EI{ILY R. HANSEN, )
an Attorney at Law, ) HEARING OFFICERIS OPINION,
) TINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND
) RECOMIVIENDATION

By Disciplinary Board Order entered on October t8 r 1983, I


was appointed Hearing Officer in this proceeding. A day later
State Bar Counsel filed the Formal Complaint. On October 26
respondent filed her Ansvrer. On November 1 the hearing was
held in Seattle and i,ras concluded in that one day. The Bar
Association was represented by Leland G. Rip1ey, and respondent
appeared pro se.
Since the affairs of mankind, especially those of a con-
test.ed nature, normally pursue a more measured and stately pace
than that just set down, I think it proper to point out that
respondent's husband is employed by the United States State
Department and has been posted to one of the countries of
Africa and that shortly after the November I hearing respondent
terminated her law practice here and joined her husband in
Africa. I gather from paragraph 5 of respondentrs affirmative
defenses set out in her Answer that she and Bar Counsel had
planned to bring this matter on somewhat earlier and that, in
JuIy at least, respondent had an attorney to represent her.
There \,ras, however r oo testimony aL the hearing about t'hat'

HEARING OFFICERI S OPINION 1


JNR/19
t
paragraph 5, and respondent was her own attorney before me.

Because of the unusual nature of this proceeding and of


some of the facts involved in it, I thlnk it, advisable that I
cast my findings, conclusions and recommendation in the form of
an opinion.
The Forma1 Complaint, sets forth four counts charging
respondent with violations of the Code of Professional Respon-
sibility. In brief, they charge: (1) that respondent, having
prevailed in a lawsuit for Mr. Frank Ruano and having received
from the court clerk payment of the judgment and having deposi-
ted the funds in her clientst trust account, proceeded to pay
her fee from the trust account knowing that Ruano disputed the
amounL of the fee; (21 that respondenL revealed to a !{r. Sidney
C1inch, a Ruano employee, certain secrets about, Ruanors busi-
ness, without Ruanors consent; and (3) that in another case
wherein respondent represented a Mrs. Charles and effected a
settlement, respondent. deposited the proceeds of the settlement
in her clientst trust account and paid her fee from such funds
without waiting for the deposited settlement check to cLear
through the banks and without notifying her client of her
action.

Respondent Emily R. Hansen was born on December LAt 1952.


She was graduated fromthe University of Idaho School of taw in
Lg78. She was admitted to the Bar of our State on October 25,
1978 and commenced her 1aw practice early in 1979 with the

HEARING OFFICERIS OPINION - 2


JNR/19
Thom, Navoni law firm in Seattle. At first she was a part of
that firrn, either as a salaried associate or as a junior part-
ner (the record is not clear as to which); but in June of 1981
she became "a sole practitioner in the firm"; i.€.7 she re-
mained in the firm's offices and her billings were in the
firmrs name and handled by the firm's bookkeepers, but her
practice was her own and she had her own Client.s t Trust Ac-
count. That arrangement conLinued for two and one-half years
until respondent terminated her practice in Seattle and left
for Africa in November of 1983.
Most of her law practice was in t,he field of commercial
litigation. Two older lawyers, Leslie A Wahlstrom of Bellevue
and Thomas R. Dreiling of Seattle, testified on her behalf.
Each had worked with her in contested cases and each stated
that she \^ras highly competent, straight-f orward , f aLr an,il
truthful.
The events on which the Formal Complaint against respon-
dent is based occurred in the summer of L982, dt which t,ime she
was 29 years old and had been practicing law for three and
one-ha1f years. There have been no other complaints against
her. She cooperated fully with the Bar Association in its
i-nvestigation of all matt,ers involved in the Formal Complaint.

The principal matter underlying this disciplinary proceed-


ing is a real estat,e transaction between a corporat.ion calLed
Frank Ruano & Associates, Inc. and a man named Enga. Frank

HEARING OFFICER' S OPINION - 3


JNR/19
Ruano a Associates, Inc. was a real estate firm of which Mr.
Frank Ruano was President and the designated broker. Mr. Sidney
Clinch was employed by the corporation as a real estate agent.
Clinch handled the real estate transaction for Enga. In the
opinion of Clinch and Ruano, the transaction entitled Frank
Ruano & Associates, Inc. to a substantial commission. Enga
disagreed and refused Lo pay the commission, whereupon Frank
Ruano & Associates, Inc. inst,ituted a lawsuit to recover the
commission from Enga. I find that Frank Ruano & Associates,
Inc. was a bona fide corporation but that, for our purposes
here, it may be regarded as the alter ego of Frank Ruano and
hence I shall refer to it and to !1r. Ruano interchangeably as
ttRuano".

Ruano employed a lawyer named Robert E. Smith to \dage his


suit against Enga. That was in 1978. Smith was then in the
Thom, Navoni law firm. Ruano and Smith discussed the matter of
Smith's fee and whether it should be a contingent fee or a fee
based on the amount of lawyer work done. They agreed on the
latter basis. Ruano testified that that was his choice because
both he and Smith thought at the time that it would be cheaper.
Ruano became dissatisfied with Smith's handling of the
case and told Srnith so. Some tirne in L979 Smith told Ruano
that he was turning the case over to respondent Hansen. Ruano
testified that he did not "agree" to that. He did not, how-
ever, te1l either Smith or respondent of his disagreement, and
the fact is that he accepted respondent as his attorney in the
case and she proceeded to represent him throughout.

HEARING OFFICERIS OPINION - 4


JNR/19
The case was tried in King County Superior Court in
January of 1980, and Ruano prevailed. Ruano testified that
"the result was goodo, but that in his opinion anyone could
have won his case. Enga evidently did not share that view and
appealed the judgment to the State CourL of Appeals.
On December 28, 1981 the Court of Appeals filed its opin-
ion affirming the Superior Courtrs judgment. fhe opinion is
unpublished but is noted in 30 Wn. ApP. 1051. Enga then
petitloned the State Supreme Court to review the case. On May
7, 1-982 the Supreme Court denied that petition (97 Wn.2d 1017),
and it was then evident that mandates would soon come down from
the appellate courts t,o the Superior Court, whereupon Enga
would have to pay the judgment.
The judgmenL for Ruano against Enga was for
$121346.94, and by the time it was paid accrued interest' on it
was $2 1482.02. on June 25 , L982 Enga paid $14 r 828.96 int,o the
Superior Courtrs registry, and respondent filed a satisfaction
of the judgment. On June 29 the court clerk paid respondent
the money in the registry, and respondent promptly deposit'ed
the ent,ire sum in her trust account. Respondent then examined
her records and ascertained that Ruano owed $1r122.63 for
accumulated costs and expenses and a fee of #7 '712'00 which
included $512.00 for work done from June 1 to June 29. she
then drew two checks on her trust account, one to herself for
the costs and expenses ($11122.63) and one to the Thomr Navoni
f irm for the $7 ,7L2.AO fee. In due course both checks i.l7ere
negotiated. On that same duy, June 29, respondent attempted to

HEARING OFFICERIS OPINION - 5


JNR/19
telephone Ruano but did not reach him. Respondent also wrote a

letter that day to Ruano and Clinch telling them that she had
received payment of the judgrnent and that the three should have
a meeting soon to disburse funds t,o Ruano and Clinch. On the
next day respondent and Mrs. Ruano had a telephone conversa-
tion. l'Irs. Ruano is a secretary in a Seattle 1aw f irm. She
was familiar with much of Ruano's business and with the Enga
case. Respondent testified that she told lilrs. Ruano that she
had disbursed the costs and fee from her trust account and that
she had tried to reach Ruano on the 29Lh to inform him that she
was going to do so. Mrs. Ruano testified that respondent did
not telI her that. Mrs. Ruano testified that she told respon-
dent "You know the fee is in dispute". Respondent denied that
Mrs. Ruano had said that.
IIow can we tel1 which recollection is correct? We cannot,
but we can make deductions. Most of the conversation dealt
with Mrs. Ruanors astonishment and indignation that the court
clerk had paid the money out of the registry by a check drawn
to respondent I s order. Iv1rs . Ruano bel ieved that the clerk
normally drew such checks to the joint. order of the client and
the lawyer. (I believe that she is wrong about the clerk's
customr but the custom is of no moment here, and we know what
the clerk did in this case.) Mrs. Ruano believed that the
clerkrs drawing the check sole1y to respondentrs order vtas
somehow respondentrs doing and that iL deprived Ruano of a

"negotiating position", that is, now that respondent had the


money, it would be harder for Ruano to get the fee reduced.

IIEARING OFFICERI S OPINION - 6


JNR/19
(Assuming that this "negotiating position" point is va1id, it
is evident that iL would exist no matter whether the fee money
was in respondentrs trust account or in her regular bank
account. In either case she would have control of the funds,
and it. was that control that annoyed the Ruanos.) Mrs. Ruano
testified before me, although she did not say that she had told
this to respondent in the telephone conversat,ion, that Ruano
had believed for some time that the fee as shown in respon-
dentrs monthly bills \das getting out of hand and was excessive
because it vras large in comparison with the amount involved in
the case in substance, that Ruano rras regretting his 1978
decision against a contingent- fee arrangement. She testified
that Ruano had not wanted respondent as his lawyer, but that he
believed he was "stuck with her", Then she said that Ruano had
never complained to respondent, either about her being his
lawyer or about the growing figures on the monthly bil1s '
because he thought "it wouldnrt do any good". A11 this was
pretty much corroborated by Ruano in his testimony.
I deduce f rom the foregoing, and f ind as a f act, t,hat
respondent did teII Mrs. Ruano that respondent had disbursed
the costs and fee amounts from her clients' trust account; that
Mrs. Ruano did tel1 respondent that "the fee is in dispute";
and that Mrs. Ruano did not te]l respondent "wherein" the fee
was in disputeT i.e .7 what amounts \'rere challenged by Ruano and
whether they were substantial or minuscule.
Further on this "fee dispute, matter, as the situation
stood on June 29 and 30, L982t T find that, all during the many

HEARING OFFICERIS OPINION . 7


JNR/19
months while the case \das pending, the Thom, Navoni firm ren-
dered monLhly bills to Ruano showing the detail of work done
each month, balance forward from previous monthly bil1s and
total amount due. Ruano accepted these bills without objection
and, indeed, without any commentl but he did not Pay them. In
May of 198I the Thom, Navoni firm evidently became concerned
about the general matter of accounts receivable and developed a
form letter informing aII clients that thereafter "all state-
ments will bear int.erest at the rate of LzZ per annum on ac-
counts thirty days or more overdue". Respondent sent one of
these "Dear Client" letters to Ruano on June 1, 1981. Ruano
alid not reply to respondent, but he t,elephoned the f irm's
bookkeepers and informed them that (a) that he did not agree to
the imposition of interest; and (b) that he would not pay t,he
bill until the case !r7as concluded. Thereafter each bill showed
an item of interest. And Ruano continued not to pay the bills.
Respondent did not know of Ruano's objection t,o the interest
charger but she did know that Ruano was not paying the firm's
monthly bills.
About four weeks before respondent received the judgment
proceeds from the court clerk (June 29, L982) Ruano and respon-
dent met in respondentrs office. That was on June 2, L982. At
that meeting Ruano expressed what respondent described as a
"laundry list" of cornplaints. He went back four years to the
inception of the Enga case and complained that Robert Smith had
failed to subpoena a witness and had thereby delayed the case
for a year. He said that was malpractice on Smithts part. IIe

HEARING OFFICERIS OPINION . 8


Jt(R/19
said he had never wanted respondent as his attorney. He com-
plained that respondent had failed to "arrange" for a super-
sedeas bond when Enga appealed. (A supersedeas bond is put up
by an appellant, not by a respondent, and, in any eventr Enga
did finally provide such a bond; and Ruano was not going to be
hurt 1f no bond was provided, because Enga had ample funds. )
He cornplained about various other aspects of t,he handling of
the case. He complained about the firm's charging interest on
its bi11s. IIe said he wanted to see Lhe originals of the
firm's time records. (A short time later respondent sent him
copies of those that $/ere readily available and offered to send
him the rest if he wanted to see them) . llost of the net pro-
ceeds of the Enga judgment were to go to Clinch, but Ruano said
he did not want any money disbursed to Clinch except on Ruanors
order. A11 in all, the meeting was not the cheerful "victory
celebration" that might have been expected hard on the heels of
news that one has prevailed in a bitterly contested lawsuit,.
An experienced lawyer would quickly have arrived at two
deductions from the June 2 meeting. First, that here was "a
difficult c1ient". Experienced businessmen, physicians, archi-
tects, lawyers and other professional people recognize the
characteristics and symptoms of the syndrome and conduct them-
selves accordingly. Mr. Justice Holmes, whose Army service in
the Civil War made him ever fond of the military metaphor, once
wrote that one who deals with the Government "must turn square
corners". And so it is with the difficult, clientr Or the
difficult patient or customer leave no room for misunder-

ITEARING OFFICERI S OPINION . 9


JNR/19
standing, have no oral gentlemen's agreements, keep the client
fully informedr get everything in writing, make and keep fuIl
notes of all conferences, maintain meticulous accounts and
records, 9€t receipts, do everything possible to accommodate
reasonable requests and even Some unreasonable ones, and do the
best job you caR even though you know that the client will
never appreciate it and will never trust you. A judge once
wrOte, "A drunken man is as much entitled to a safe sidewaLk as
is a sober man and much more in need of it'. And a diffi-
cult client is as much entitled to proper representation as is
a friendly client -- and, likeIy, much more in need of it.
Secondlyr dil experienced lawyer would have deduced that
there was going to be trouble about his fee. The case was
over, and the result was a complete victory. Yet here was the
client splenetically dredging up bits of history about such
things aS an unsubpoenaed witness and a supersedeas bond. Why
would he do that? A reasonable deduction would be that he was
going to try to get the fee reduced there was nothing else
to argue about.
But respondent rras young and inexperienced. Never before
had she had such a client. She had handled the case by herself
and handled it wel1. Ruano had had perhaps thirty monthly
bil1s and had never complained to her about, any of them. She
simply did not appreciate the situation and did not recognize
the symptoms.
An experienced lawyer, after the June 2 meeting, would
have put the entire proceeds of the judgment in his or her

HEARING OFFICERIS OPINION - 10


JNR/19
trust account and would have left it there until he had Ruanors
signature on a statement as to how it, was to be disbursed, or
at least, if Ruano was recalcitrant, until he was sure about
how to disburse it. and that reasonable people would agree with
him.
But that is not the issue here. Our inquiry is: What, Lf
anything, did respondent do that was in violat,ion of the Code
of Professional Responsibility? Ruanors complaints about the
handling of t,he case need not detain us here. But what of the
"fee dispute"? Disciplinary Rule DR9-102(A)(2) providesr €ts to
a trust account:
Funds belonging in part to a client and in part
presently or potentially to the }awyer or law firm
must be deposited therein, but the portion belonging
to the lawyer or law firm may be withdrawn when due
unless the right of the lawyer or law firm to receive
it is disputed by the client, in which event the
disputed pbrtion sfratt not be withdrawn until the
dispute is finallY resolved.
Respondent thus could properly wit.hdraw from her trust account
the fee due her, except that she could not properly withdraw
"the disputed portion". What portion r^ras in dispute? I think
it. clear that respondent knew or should have known, after the
June 2 meeting, that Ruano disputed the item of interest
charged each month af ter the sumrner of 1981. IIow much that was
does not appear in the record r but a rough calculat.ion is that
it lrtas in the range of $800.00. Respondent should have lef t
that amount in her trust account. Was there another disputed
portion? Respondent testified that the June 2 meeting left' her
with the conviction that there was no bona fide dispute about

HEARING OFTICERI S OPINION - 11


JNR/19
the fees. And in a sense she was right about it. Ruano had
made no specific objection, beyond his objection to the charg-
ing of interest, and certainly had not suggested any do11ar
amount or any basis of calculation to which he objected. Re-
spondent just did not understand the Ruanos of this world. To
her the case was over, and the fee which had been billed was
due . But to Ruano the case was over, and now we negotiat,e
about the fee. To her that was not good faith. To Ruano it
was ordinary business.
The next time that Ruano and respondent met was on JuIy
L2. The meeting was called by &1r. Clinch, who wanted to get
his money. Ruano said he was not to be charged for the meet-
ing. Respondent had become so concerned about Ruanots attitude
that she talked about iL with Caroline Davis of the Bar As-
sociation's staff andr on Davists advice, had the meeting t,ape
recorded. The two tape casettes are in the record as Exhibits
35 and 35. Exhibit. 37 is a short written excerpt from the tape
recordirg, an excerpt prepared by Bar Counsel as being the
significant part of the conversation. In the excerpt Ruano
says that the fee is "in dispute", although he does not say
what part he disputes i he says that respondent \,ras IdronE to
disburse from her trust account any fee at all; and, as ljtrs.
Ruano did on June 30, he accuses respondent of unethical
practice because the court clerk paid the judgment proceeds to
respondent instead of to Ruano and respondent jointly.
It was at this meeting that Ruano told respondent that he
had important "contacts", that a Superior Court judge had once

HEARING OFFICERT S OPINION - L2


JNR/19
called him "&1r. IntegritY" r Ehat lawyers PreYed on the Public,
and that he was going to stop it even if it cost him
$101000.00. One of mY notes made while I was listening to the
tape recording reads thus: "Clinch tries to get his money.
Ruano wants to get Hansen*.
At the end of the meeting Clinch did get his money,
$4r909.16, paid to him by respondentrs check drawn on her trust
account on that day, July 12r 1982.
Respondent never returned any of the fee money to her
trust account. There is no suggestion in the record, hor^rever,
that she did not have, &t all times, money readily available to
return to Ruano a part of the fee if she and Ruano had negotia-
ted a lower fee. In fact they did not negotiate. On August
25, 1982, Ruano wrote respondent, saying, in part:
My material to the Bar Association is being
completed and will be submitted as a formal complaint
within the next two weeks.
Finally the fee matter was disposed of by the Bar Associa-
tion's Fee Arbitration Board in February of 1983. That Board's
record and determination are not part of the record before ill€.
Respondent testified that it was at that hearing that she first
learned of Ruanots specific objections to her fee. She said
that he objected to virtually every item on every bilI. In the
end the Board recommended that respondent should return to
Ruano the sum of $2t570.L7. Neither party in such matters has
to accept the Boardrs recommendation, and respondent indicated
that she did not agree with the Board and might take the matter
to court. On receipt of that news Ruano decided to put a large

HEARING OFFICERIS OPINION - 13


JNR/19
advertisernent in the newspaper, tellinghis side of the story
and "chastising the Bar". Before he did sor however, h€ told
David Hoff and Paul Steere what, he had in mlnd. Hoff was a
former President of the State Bar Association and a former
partner in the Thom, Navoni firm, and Steere was then the Pre-
sident of the State Bar Association. They persuaded Ruano that
the matter should be taken up with the senior partners in the
Thom, Navoni firm. In the end coolness prevailed, respondent
returned the $2r570.L7 to Ruano, and Ruano did not, publish his
ad.
There was evidently some effort made to persuade Ruano,
now that he had his money, to withdraw his Bar Association
complaint against respondent. Ruano would not hear of it. He

said that that was a separate matter. He was implacably deter-


mined that respondent be, as it i^rere, brought to justice.
During the tape-recorded conversation at the JuIy L2
meeting Mr. Ruano stated, in substance, that he had empl-oyed
many lawyers 50 or 60 in his career; that most of them
had either not done a good job for him or had overcharged him,
or both, a circumstance that led him to believe that such
derelictions were fairly characteristic of most lawyers; t,hat
the Bar AssociaLion should discipline many more lawyers than it
does; that lawyers prey on the public and he $ras going to stop
it; that respondent had been caught in violations of her duty
to him; and that he was determined to see that respondent
suffered for it.

HEARING OFFICER'S OPINION - 14


JNR/19
All during the hours of the hearing before me he sat at
the counsel table across from Bar Counsel. At the conclusion
of the evidence he attempted to make a statement or an argu-
ment, but I ruled that he was a witness and not a party, that'
the evidentiary record was closed and Lhat I would hear only
the arguments of counsel. Watching him there, I was reminded
of t,he Eumenides, t.he minor goddesses of the classical drama
whose specialty was vengeance, and of whom Harperrs Classical
Dictionary (Peck, Columbia University, 1896) says, "No prayer,
no sacrifice and no tears can move themr ot protect the object
of their persecution". And I thought' too, of St. Paul I s
admonition to the Romans that vengeance belongs to God, and to
God a1one. In Romans 12:19 he wrote; "Vengeance is mine; I
will repay, saith the tord." (Emphasis supplied).

Count III of the Formal Cornplaint. involves incidents of


respondentrs conduct in handling the Ruano v. Enga case.
Sidney Clinch was the real estate agent in Ruanots firm who
handled the Enga transaction. He !{as not a party in the
lawsuit and was not respondentrs client, but he had a substan-
tial financial interest in the outcome of the lawsuit because
the suit was for the commission from the Enga transaction.
Originally he was to receive 7OZ of the commission, but on
April 28r 1981 Ruano and he negotiated it down to 508. It was
also agreed that a $21000.00 debt due him from Ruano would be
paid from the proceeds of the lawsuit. Clinch ceased to work

HEARING OFFICERI S OPINION - 15


JNR/19
for Ruano in December of 1981 because Ruano closed his business
at that time. That was about the time when the Court of Appeals
affirmed Lhe Superior Courtrs judgnlent.
Sometimes when respondent wrote to Ruano or sent hirn a
copy of a document she would send a copy to Clinch as well.
Ruano made no objection to that practice. Then one day in
January of L982, when Ruano i^las examining one of respondentrs
monthly bil}s, be observed an item of a telephone conversation
between Clinch and respondent. IIe telephoned respondent and
told her to "quit talking on t,he phone to Clinch. It is cost-
ing me money". Respondent replied that she had not called
Clinch; that Clinch had called her. Ruano told her to quit
charging him for telephone conversations with Clinch. There-
after she complied with his directions, made no such charges,
and, so far as the evidence disclosed, did not again talk with
Cl inch .
Ruanotestified that at, that same time he also told her to
quit sending copies to Clinchr Ets that was also "costing me
money". Respondent testified that Ruano said nothing about her
"copying C}inch". (The use of the verb form ocopying'r to mean
sending a copy is a barbarism. One hopes that respondent will
abandon that clumsy locution. ) On a few occasions after Janu-
ary tg82 respondent did send copies of letters to Clinch. On
this disputed point, in the evidence I believe respondent. lhe
sending of a copy to C}inch did not consume time and hence
would not cost Ruano any money, the cornmodity that was Ruanots
prime interest. Moreover, if in fact Ruano had directed respon-

HEARING OFFICER'S OPINION - 16


JNR/19
dent not to send copies to C1inch, I can think of no reason why
she would not have complied.
It is respondent's "conduct in sending Sidney CIinch
copies of letters she wrote on Mr. Ruanors behalf and in writ-
ing letters to both Mr. Ruano and Mr. Clinch" that, is the
gravamen of CounL III. The charge is that it violated Disci-
plinary Rule 4-101(B) which prohibits the revelation of client
conf idences and secrets . rn my v ier'1, under the f acts here '
this charge cannot stand. In drawing into wire the most
malleable of metals, gold, it is possible to draw a wire so
fine that it is virtually invisible. The basis of this charge
ls likewise so attenuated that I cannot see it, even in a
strong light. There was no evidence that there were any con-
fidences or secrets in any of those letters.
Even Bar Counsel, who presented this case in a most skill-
ful and able manner, \^Ias driven to rely on a single letter, and
that was written on April 6, I981, by respondent to Engats
lawyer. Copies went to Ruano and Clinch. In it respondent
pointed out to counsel that no supersedeas bond had yet been
filed and that, if that were not soon done, "we will have no
choice but to bring execution proceedings". Bar Counsel argued
in his Hearing Memorandum that that liras a "client secret" and
should not have been revealed to Clinch because it. "could have
been embarrassing t oy could have been detrimental to Mr.
Ruanors relationship with Mr. Clinch". Holr it could have been
so completely escapes $€r and it must have escaped Ruano also
because he voiced no remonstrance about it.

HEARING OFFICERI S OPINION - L7


JNR/19
Count IV of the Forinal Complaint does not involve t'he
Ruano matter. The facts underlying this count are these:
Respondent was the attorney for Sharon J. Charles in a
lawsuit brought by Charles against her landlord. The prayer
was for damages of $25t000.00. The suit was settled by the
landlordrs paying $231000.00. fhe check in the settlement
amount Was drawn to the order of Charles and respondent. It
was delivered to respondent late on Fridayr July 15, 1982.
Respondent, Promptly wrote to Charles asking her to come to
respondentrs office on Mondayr July 19' charles did so and
endorsed the check and signed the release required by the
Iand1ord. Respondent told Charles that she would put t'he money
in her trust account, disburse the accrued expenses and
respondentrs fee therefrom, and disburse the remainder to
Charles. Charles agreed and expressed her pleasure with the
result. She knew \,rhat the f ee would be.
Respondent put the settlement money in her trust account
on July 19. On that same day she wrote two checks on that'
account, one to herself for the costs and expenses incurred on
Charlesf s behalf in the amount of $L,234.35, and the other to
the [homr Navoni firm for the fee in the amount, of $111760'39'
Respondent did not disburse funds to Charles until July
27 r when she drew a check on her trust, account to Charles s
I

order for $101005.26 and delivered it to Charles. She delayed


this disbursement to allow time for the settlement check to

IIEARING OFFICERI S OPINION 18


JNR/19
clear the banks. The check was actually issued by the land-
lordrs insurance companyr so there was litt1e likelihood that
there would be any problem of its clearingr but, respondent,
thought it was proper practice to wait.
Charles has never complained or expressed any dissatisfac-
tion with respondentrs handling of the matter. The Bar
Association does not criticize respondent for her delay in
disbursing to Charles, indeed, it approves it. Its criticism
goes to her disbursements of July 19.
fhe gravamen of Count IV is t,hat when respondent withdrew
from her trust account the amounts of the fee and the costs and
expenses the settlement check had not yet had t,ime to clear the
banks, and hence respondent violated Guideline III, 2 of the
Trust, Account Guidelines, published in 35 Washington State Bar
News 16r L9, June 1981, which reads:
Trust disbursements on behalf of a client should
be made only after the client's receipt check has
cleared through the banking process.
And, of course, the count is correct; she did violate that
Guideline. Respondent testified that she had "skimmed through"
that issue of the Bar News, but that she had forgotten that
particular Guideline. She thought that her handling of the
funds was sensible and proper, that is, she did not want. her
client to take even a small risk that the insurance companyrs
check would not clearr butr ES to her July 19 disbursements,
she and the firm could take that risk because t,hey could
readily reimburse her trust fund until the matter of a non-
clearing check could be cleared up.

HEARING OFTICERT S OPINION - 19


JNR/19
Of course, Lhe insurer's check did clear the banksi so no
one suffered. And respondent acted in good faith. Still,
Guideline III '2 is there, and ignorantia legis neminern
excusat.

Now, what are we to make of all this?


I conclude as follows:
I. Count III of the Formal Complaint, the "client
Secret" count, has no substance and should be dismissed.
2. Count IVr the Charles case matter, does have sub-
stance and ought not to be dismissed. A lady once taxed Dr.
Samuel Johnson with having incorrectly defined in his Diction-
ary one of the parts of a horse. "How could you have done such
a thing?" she asked. He replied, "Ignorance, Madam, pure ig-
norance!" Respondent did violate Guideline III, 2. She did so
through ignorance. She had no improper motive or intent. No
harm was done. But she did commit a technical violation of the
Guideline. She can take some comfort from the fact that the
Guideline SayS "ShOUld" and nOt "Shall" Or "must", and henCe
may be said to be admonitory on1y. Stil}, she did what she
"should" not have done.
3. Counts I and II, the Ruano fee disbursement matter,
likewise have substance and ought not to be dismissed. Before
she disbursed from her trust account the amount of the fee, she
knew that Ruano objected to the item of interest and to her
having charged Ruano for the time spent in a telephone conver-

IIEARING OFFICERI S OPINION . 20


JNR/19
saLion wit.h Clinch. She should have retained in her trust
account monies to care for those items she had a duty to do
So. As to the rest of it, the conclusion is not So clear'
Shortly after the fee disbursement was made she was told by the
Ruanos that "the fee is in dispute". Bar Counsel argues that
she should then promptly have put the whole fee back into her
trust account to await resolution of the "dispute". An exper-
ienced lawyer would have done sor if only out of an abundance
of caution. But did respondent have a formal duty to do so?
Certainly a substantial fee had been earned and was due' To
what portion of the billings did Ruano object? Beyond the
interest item and the one for the Clinch telephone conversation
Ruano would not say. IIe kept saying only "The fee is in dis-
put€rt 7 and it. was not until mont,hs later at the arbitration
hearing that he stated any real or specific objections' It
would be one t.hing if the last bill had been t'he first' he had
ever received. But Ruano had been receiving monthly bills for
many months and he had made no comment about any of them'
Under all those circurnstances I conclude that respondent was

warranted in her belief that there vi'as no real disput'e about


the fee other than the two items noted above and that his "fee
dispute" remarks had no more substance than the rest of his
complaints.
4. I also conclude that respondent is contrite about her
transgression. And her contrition is not that which Emily
Dickinson called ,,a bayonetts contrition" and which a Japanese
officer summed up in his remark to one of the members of our

HEARING OFFICERI S OPINION - 2I


JNR/19
occupying force in September of 1945, "Pearl Ilarbor big mis-
take. PIeaSe, so sorry!" Respondentrs contrition is not that
of one who is merely Sorry that he was caught -- rather it is a
genuine contrition for her transgressions. In my opinion they
were the result of youth and inexperience and not of avarice or
greed or sharp practice or malevolence of any kind'
RECOMMENDATION

What should be done with respondent? Ilere we have a young


person, barely over the threshold of her career. BY all ac-
counts she is a sound lawyer and a truthful, honest person'
She has done two things incorrectly: she withdrew trust account
funds in the Charles case before the underlying check had
cleared the banks, and in the Ruano Case she paid her fee out
of t.rust account funds when she knew that a small portion of
that fee was in disPute.
We are Lo look at three entities: the offending lawyer,
other lawyers, and the public. Punishment, per s€r is not the
object, for punishment relates to the past, and our concern is
with the future.
As to respondent, what will it take to make respondent
realize her transgressions and to educate her so that she will
not err again? I think that no sanction need be imposed to
bring about that result. Respondent's experience in this
matter, and in the investigation leading up to the formal
hearing, and the hearing itself, have provided respondent with
a wealth of education. The iron has entered her soul.

HEARING OFFICERI S OPINION . 22


JNR/19
Other lawyers can l-earn from respondentr S experience'
some of t,hem will learn of it by word of mouth. The only way
that all can learn of this matter is to have it published' If
the Board were to conclude that respondent should be disbarred
or suspended, then atl can learn by reading the Supreme Court's
opinion. But I certainly do not recommend either Suspension or
disbarment, for those ultimate sanctions are not warranted by
the facts here. This case could be used aS the basis for a
concise Bar News article on the subject, an article which I
should be pleased to write if the Bar Association wishes' &ly
opinion here might be published, but I think that its length
would make any publisher recoil in dismay'
What of the public? One of the purposes of Bar discipline
is protection of the public, and another is to demonstrate to
the public that Bar discipline is zealous, all-pervasive and
effective. Yet we cannot publicize all disciplinary matters'
especiatly those where moral turpitude is not involved, and, Lf
we did, many would not be of general interest'' I think that
t,he best way to protect and inform the public is to continue to
do the disciplinary work well and truly, trusting in the pub-
Iic's wisdom to understand and appreciate what is being done.
I recommend that respondent be censured for the two
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility hereto-
fore discussed.

At Seatt1e, December 5, 1983

IIEARING OFFICERI S OPINION - 23


JNR,/19
I BEFORE. THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD
OF THE WASIITNGBON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
2

3 In re
RE'Ps{ ru
4 EMILY R. HANSEN, NOTICE OT APPEAL
W.S.B
b An Attorney at Law.

7 TO: Emily R; Hansen, Respondent


8 You are hereby notified that pursuant to Rr,D 6.1(b), the
"9 Washington State Bar Association is filinq Notice of Appea1 from
10 the decision of-the hearing panel officer filed on Decernber 6, 1983
It The issues intended to be raised are as follows:
t2 (1) Whether the hearing panel officer, ds a matter of law,
t3 correctly characterized the nature of the respondent's unethical
t4 gonduct in the hand.Iing of Frank Ruano's funds,
,

l5
16 mendation that respondent receive two censures
17

l8
19

20
TIFICATE CIF
2L
I CERTIFY THAT I MAILED A
22

23
la, aazo
24

25

26

27

NOTICE:OF APPEAL WrlSHINcroN Srete Bari AssocIArIoN


505 Madissn,street
Splrrlr, WasnINcroN 98104
QAq A2-6026
I
BEFoRE rHE Drs"r*"r*"*w*uuts
OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAI
,
3
In re
4 EMTLY R. .HANSEN, uus,B.A.
Ar'FIDAVIT OF SERVICE
5 An, Attorney at Law. BY MAIL

7 r certify that r mailed a copy of the foregoing Transcript


8 of Hearing for Respondent Enoily R. Hansen, held November'1, 1993,
::
9 to Emil1r R.'Ilansen, respondent at the American Ernbassy, Ouaqadouqou
l0 Upper Vo1ta, Department of State, Washinglon, D.C. 20520, first
1l cl-ass mail, postage prepaii t, on tn" Mday of December, 1983.
L2

l3 WASHTNGTON STATE SOCTATION

t4
t5
Leland G. Ripley
l6 State Bar Counsel
t7
1B

r9

2A

2l
,,
23

24

25

26

27

AEFIDAVIf OF SERVI CE WasunoroN SrerB Ban AssocrArroN


BY ryr.;1tr 505 Madison Street
, Sserrr,r, WnsnworoN 98104
Q05\ 622-6026
a
I BET'ORE HE
DISC]PLINARY BOARD
mq^PsH
, OF' THE
WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
3
w.s.B"fi.
4 Inre )
I
5 EMILY R. TIANSEN , } STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
,
6
i.
)
7 )

I :) 1 STATEMENT OT ITHE CASE


l

9 This statement is in opposition to the hearing officer's


t0 Opinion, I'indings, Conclusionsf and Recomnnendation previously filed
lt with the Association. After hearing, the hearing off,icer
t2 found the respondent had committed a "technical" violation of the
l3 rules governing the legal profession in hand,ling the funds belong-
t4 ing to Frank Ruano, and therefore should receive only two censures.
15 It is state bar counsel's belief that the hearing officer's
r6 opinion incorrectly states the Iaw with regard to the nature of

t7 !is. Hansenrs unethical conduct, and coul-d result in a substantial


18 deterioration of previously rigid and uncompromising rules re-

19 garding the handling of client funds.

20 FACTS

21 Emily R. Hansen was an attorney for Frank Ruano in litigation


oo anising out of a faj-lure to perform an earnest money agreement.
23 Mr. ds the broker, sued the seller for the real estate
R.uanor
24 commission. On June 2, L982, when the appellate process was almost
25 concluded and the rnandate from the litate Supreme Court was
26 expected momentarily, Ms. Hansen and Mr. Ruano had. a meeting. AE
27 that meeting the hearing officer found that &Ir. Ruano presented
STATEMENT IN OPPOSITIOiiI
WaSHTNGToN Slarr Bln AssocrATroN
Page 1 of 7 505 Madison Street
Sr,c,TTrB, rilAsHrNGToN 98 I 04
o o
I a number of complaints, including the charging of interest on his
2 bilI, .arid asked,'to see the originaLll,of the firm's time records.
3 (op. p.8-9) , Ex. #1
4

b to pay the judgrnent with the cle.nR' of. the King Countyr Superior
6 CourL. ron June 29, 7-982, Ms. Hailseni'.'as attorney f,or F'rank Ruano,

7 withdrew the sum of $14,828.96. She deposited. these funds into

I her trust account with''the,Bank'of California. On the same day,


l

9 Ms, Hansenr:'withou!.':,an11.,,specific authoritl-,,'f"oin Mr* Ruano. withdrew


,I

costs in'the" amount 'ofr $8 r B 34.6 ))


i'
10 whatr ,she asserted" Lo' be,"hei' fees and::
:

It (Ex. L4 e 15). Tr. p. L4 1.I0-p-I5. ,.At the time Ms. Hansen wrote
:.
t2 these trust account checks, her client did not know.that she had
.'..
I3 his money in her account. Tr. p.i5, ls.12:15.
t4 the same 'day that Ms. Hansen withdrew these fund.s, she
On
15 wl:ote a'Iet'ter to 'her client 'informing him that the funds had been

r6 received, but not. informing,, him that she.had withdrawn those funds.

17 Ex.. #3 atEaehed., In r;uly, l-982, LIs. .Hansen.;for bhe fi:rst ti-rne,

l8 gB$zEl:her:,,cti€nt,rl,rwrj.tten not,ificati.op af, the'r.'fluher,29i 1982,;",,,dfs- ..;.


r9
.

20 Atthetimethatthefundsweredisbursed,theamountof
2L fees anrf cost=,'t.k"r, by I,{s. Hansen exeeeded any bill that had
22 previously, been subrnit.ted''to Ruano. trr. p.14, Isi2-8. The'amount
23 she took inctuded :.: atrL the interestl'which R.uano had. specificalIy
ztl protested., in the approxj-mate ar,rount of $800 (Op. p.11).
25 In addition, in another unrelated maf,ter, Ms,. Hansen wrote
26 herself
-. ----. .--- tiiust
-- --: - account - for fees and costs on the same day
- - - *- checks .

27 that the.seftlement funds were received without waiting for the


.''.
STATEMEI'{T trN o P P 0 s r m o&o,,^o;B!
,;l;t*l?"ctArroN
PaEe, 2 of 7 iffi
Srlttrr, %sHINGroN 981 04
I instrurnent which represented those funds to be negotiated. However,
:

2 she delayed dlsbursing funds to her client until she was certain

3 that instrument had cl-eared. the bank. Op. p. 18-20 .

4 ARGUMENT

b A. The Hearing Officer's Conclusion ras to the Nature of


6 Emily Hallq,en's Misconduct Ignores the Eact that Ms. Hansen &s
7 iitrot Dealing With Her Own Fu_nds.
I .'. hearing officer recommends that Ms. Hansen receive a
The
9 letter of censure for her mishandling of Frank Ruano's funds. The
l0 recontmendation is based, dt least in part, on the erroneous con-
lt clusion of Iaw that a cl-ient who fails to object in detail to
t2 specific items of an attorney's bil1, but onllz raises general.
r3 "questions" about the bill, has waived any right to require
t4 respondent to maintain all of the fees claimed in her trust account
l5 as required by DR 9-102 (A). op. p.11-12. A second erroneous
16 conclusion of the hearing officer is that any attorney may withdraw
:
t7 fees from client funds prior to giving the client notice of the
l8 intent to withdraw those fees and the amount intended to be with-
19 awn, at least if the ci-ient has not expresserl heate{ and.total
'.'
2A jections to prior billJ-ngs.
2l The hearing officer unfortunately appears to have turned the
22 taI premise behind the requirement that client funds be
23 raced in trust i-nto a "technical" matter. client funds are
24 laced j-n trust because they are not the funds of the attorney and
2i5 not to be handled in any raanner the attorney sees fit. once
26 . llansen had received the funds on behalf of her client, those
27 unds were hel.d in a fiduciary capacity. As a fid.ueiary, IrIs. Hansen
ATE}IENl' IN oPPos rr rotVrrr*"rou srn ru Ben AssocrATroN
age 3 of 7 505 Madison Street
SnarrrB, WnsruxcroN 98 1 04
o o
I
a,

I
9

r0

ll
\2
r3

L4

15

l6
17

18

19

2"0

2l
22

23

24

25 have.,been. reasonabLe. but .thts does.,not, exeuse.-rgspondbnt,J.sJr"idtheC of


26 ext,raptinr3 it,. Ln_qq,Sia\l,ygqr'98 trIn;2d 584r, 586r,656 r)..,?ci 503 (1983)
27

STATEMENT IN oPPos 1T roftasnwctoN stetE Bnn AssoctATIoN

Page 4 :of 7
: 505 Madison Street
t 1o

.:
I . The hearing
-:- - -- - --.- officer, apparentl,y is' of the, opinion that the
, properapproachind.ea].ingwithdj.sputesregardingfeesis-to
3 require the client to notify the attorney of the exact amount of th
4 dispute, otherwise the attorney is entit}ed to, the rfloney. This
:

5 approach is backwards. It ignores the principle that the funds are


6 the client!s, not the attorney,ts. In addition, this anallrsis
.-
I ignores the requirements that a fiduciarll relationship places upon
I the attorney.
9 The Suprerne Court has taken .an opposite
..
approach in dealing
with attorneys who take fees that they mtght - not be entitled to.
.

l0 ..

1t For instance, in In re Kennedy, 80 Wn.2d 222, 492 P.2d 1364 (L972),


t2 the Supreme Court, suspended. attorneys who, in part, obtained
l3 set,tlement funds, paid thernselves fees r and. did not account for
L4 the fee. The attorneys took the position that their contingent
r5 fee haci, by agreement, been increased from 33 i/3 t-o 50 per cent.
.l

16 In response to this contentionr' tr.r(e,rWashington State ,supreme Court


made them repall the entire amount of fees into the King Co.untlt:
'
L7

18 Superior
: Court clerk's trust account until that court,ideterroj.ned
19 whowas,ent,it'1edtot'hesefeesorany'partofthern
20 B. The. Hearing Of f icer's Recornmended Sanction Faj-Is
2 I lnecognize
"
the Serious Nature of' Respondentis
'-'''' t''''
Misconduct.
':
|
rn making a recoinmendation with regand to Ms. Flansen's
I

22 I
I

lmisconauct with regard to Mi. Ruanof s fund.sr the hearing. officer


I

23

24
lconcluded that a lett,er of censure would be appropriate for tir-e
I

25 lmisconduct which had occurred. This sanction is inadequate. The


lhearinq officer found that there was a dispute with regard to the
I
26

or.d to i,Is. IIansen. Op. p.11-12. DR 9-102 (A) requires that


I
27 It".
t-
IN oPPoq rr rohor*r*"roN sTntn.Sm AssocmtroN
STAifEI!ffif.TT

Page 5 of 1 : SOS'Madison Street r

Splrtlx, I[esruxclror* $ S1 o+
a o
I
,
3

I
9

10

lt
t2
l3
t4
15

16
V

t7
18

l9
E
20

2L

22

23

?/L

25

26

27

;tATEI'itrNT TN oPPos r r rolftiasnmctgI


lIoJE Ba* AssoctArloN
,age 6 of 505 Madison Street
7
Surrr.r, WassmcroN 98 I 04
:

1 respondent's re'l.ative inexperience r, :lack of improper motive and


':l

2 a "difficult" client. . Bar counsells initial recommendation was for


:..
- f. '.t: "'..1'

3 a ,30 d,ay suspension for lrts. Hansenrs trust account violat.ions in-

4 volving Uotfr Mr, Ruano ! s and, I"Is. ,icharles' funds. (Since both in-

D cidents of mis.cond.uct occurred in June and July , L982, it seerns


-:
6 appropriate to have one sanct.ion for,boLh incidents.)
. ., , ."-,

I This recomnend.ed sanction t.al<es .A.ccount of the mitigating


I factors invoLved
---- -- in this proceeding as welf as the serious nature
9

l0 'ii : ': 'i, ," ': . ' ;,. '.CONGIUSICIN


^^-ia.-:'^+A4r ; " '!: '::

11 :The goiia sfroutd modify the hearing off,icer's recomendation


12

l3 prac.tlce' of law for13f days


L4 DAIED this ILYEo^o of January, 1984.
15 tfu1J-1t s
r6

17
Le
18 State Bar Counsel
19

20 CERTI FICAT€
%
CIf $Hft"lfi Cf
zl 1 CERTIFY TFiAT I MA]LED A COPY

22
fofifiGQrn*Gwra
2g f9R+EsFe$+DEur Ar

2/l

25
STATE BAR COUI!
26

27

TATEMENT rN oPPosrt'ro\MAsHINcroN
srarr Bln AssoctArloN
aEeTofT 505 Madison Street
Spertm, WessruoroN 98 1 04
rHoM"?ouo*,, o,;;;#' RYDen tnroR ffi L0 L SYt'Xa
3X&r a H${t}a I Frot!3s1orlAL SElYrea conioia?lon,ilcl.uol]ra lRolvltuaL caBpQ'a"loxl o, ceiatt '.4
oll.t L ruiaxa
o^no L $JO.. r.a
..rtlrg ra oxrE?oaa 373? AAAX of cAl.lroii{lA C€N"ER
{io w. trl*toB ta SEAT.rLA rtASHIilGTON 9{lI 64
licat a ftax
,rrHtx e lv6cr. ta
aot6E w. tcxooBrax]le ,,3
.iut L ?r€* P.3.
rEL€FltOlrE: zOa 68!'5.3! ' i
' r !
rt
:i
l+ sl
.rune _22!_Jry

Frank Ruano
T'8ANK RUANO & ASSOCIATES, INC.
L6744 39th N,E.
Seat,t,le, l{ashington 98L33
'4

Sidney Clinch
850 Somerset Lane
I
Ednonds, Washington 980?0
Rel Srank Ruano & Associates, Inc. v' Enga
King County Cause No. 845423
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that, at long 1ast, the f,unds in
satisf,action of tlre above-referencad judgarent have been
of
iJceived in my of f ices. I recoruaend that ttre threethesE
us arrange a ileeting for the Purpose- of disbursing
.: f,unds aciording to [,ne
-ds agreemant as between Frank r 8s former
AioXer, 'and Sla""Vr firmer agentr oll this transact,ion and
the written disbulsement, instruct,ions PreviousJ'y submitted
to me.
f will be ou state rom
rou , m-am availabLe after that
d,ate for is meeting.
Very trulY Yours,
*,u,Q\I,-,-",,J
./
Emilyin. Hansen

ASSOi]IAIIONS
rYHltl!r
Li\r ilut I l.,tn
r!v
I i J
, BEFORE THE IREBEIMEMI
-[U,
2
DrscrPli.+# BoARD lNl;;*I
!. I:t A t'
WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
3

4 uu.s.BJL
5 OfiA'L ARGUMENT

6 An, Att!{ney at Lawr


7

I Pursuant to RtD 6.7(c), bar counsel requests oral argument


,9 before the Disciplinary Board during the Boardt s consideration
l0 of this matter.
:

tl Dated this day of


L2
ectfully
r3
L4

l5
16

t7
18

19
RTIFICATE CIF SH
I CERTIFY THATJ
20 roilEcfin'lc g{-
2l
22 c.2r)52.O
23

24

25

26

27

NEQUEST FOR
WessmoroN Smre Ban AssocrATroN
ARGUMENT
505 Madison Street
Srerrle, WesswcroN 98104
(nq 622-6026
American Embassy Ouagad"ougou
Department of State
Washington, n.C. 2O52O
January 2f, 1984

I{erabers of the DisciSrl,inary Board.


Washington State Bar Assoeiation
505 Madi-son Street
Seattle, WA. 98104 RY,?5H"ts
Re: Bar Counsel Appeal
Ivlatter of Emily R. llansen
w.s.B.A.
Dear Sirs:
I wish to bring to the Disciplinary Board.,r s attentlon for
its special ,disposition the above-entitled nr: tter. This proceeding,
flled by Frank Ruano in Febru&r'Xr, L981, has now been d.rawn out for
over one year. I have fully eooperabed. with bar eounsel, Ireland.
G. Ripley, through an exhaustive. investi-gation, deposition, and
hearings d.uri-ng thi"s time.
Early in the proceed"ings in this matter, both the lawyer who
accompanied me to my d.eposition and I informi:&i Mr. Ripley of m;r
intention to take a leave of absence from my practice to join my
husband, a member of the IJ.S. diplomatic corjls in West Africa. He
respond"ed by promising the entire matter would" be completed prior
to my sched.uled d.er:rture in September of 7981. Yet he neglected.
to fj-le a formal cornplaint until mid-October and only set-the heering
in Irlovember when r lnsisted on expedibing the p:roceed"ing.
. f{owr- after_ a complete airing of the affair before a thorough
- thoughtful
.*nd-- hearlnss examiner and. after f have moved to Afri-Ea,
he has fj-ledi g baseless appeal^and-requested. yet another hearing
j-n Seattle. Flr.. Eipley is obviously aware that it is i.mpossibl[
for me to attend any oral argument of this matber, some iorooo
miles from my home, thus put[ing me at an unfair o:-saovantige.
Furthermore, the word.i"ng of his appeal as based on a mls-
charaeterizatio! of my acbions j-s designed. to lead the appellate
tribunal to beli-eve that the hearlngs examiner misund.epstiroC. the
facts* Based" o-q lvlr. Ripley.ls challenge, one might even conclude
the-hearings officer ruled agailst the associatlon. In fact, John
N. I*pp-,- the hearings officeir _{i{ find" improper behavior on'*y--
part; Mr: Ripley is simply miffed that tha sLnction imposed i;
not more damaging to rny career despite his most vigorous efforts.
Bar couneel- is well aware of the unusual emotional suffering
and fj-nancial loss thisdfair has caused me. fhat he wouLd" atteil!,t
to prolong this vendetta at this late date makes rne rrond"er j-f h;
hasn't ad.opted the vlndictive atti-tud.e of my forrner client, so aptly
deserj-bed by Mr, Rupp as Sthab of Eumenides, a godd.ess whose spebialty
was ven5geance. ti
Membersof the }isciplinary Board
Washington $tate Bar Association
Jmuary 2f, 1984
Page Two

On a technieal basj-s, Ivlr. Ripley's appeal should be dismissed


for the following reasons:
1. Herrstatement
has fai-led, pursuant to RID C.10)), to file and nail
to me his of Appealr" thus abandonning this appeal; and"
2. His 'rRequest for 0ra1 Argumentn was filed twenty-1wo'(ZZ)
t*fg, no! twenty d.ays as required" by RLD 6.7(c), following the
fillng of "Notiie of ;\ppeal.'r
I urge the Disciplinary Board. to brlng this peculiar matter
before it at i-ts next regular meeting for dj-smissal of bar counself s
appealr or, at a mi-nimun, for denial of counsel:ns request for oraL
argurn.ant.
fhank you for your thoughtful conslderation.

'{*Wff)
Emily &. Hansen
cc: Leland G. Ripley
$tate'Bar Counsel
uI'
LEGAL DEPARTXIENT

DIRECT LINE
(206) 622.6026

wegHrxGroN srare B*n AgqgctATtoN


505 MADISON ST., SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98t 04
ROBERT.T. FARRELL STAFF ATTORNEYS
GENERAL COUNSEL ROBERT O, WETDEN
i. FHEA J. ROLFE
LELA}dD G. FIPLEY iiARK W.,iIt'ENSTEf,
SEN]oR STAFF ATTORNEY DEBORATI OOWD
MEMORANDUM

?ol Disciplinary Board


FROM: Leland G. Ripley, Senior Staf,f Attorney
DAITE: February 13., 1984
RE: In Te EMILY R. HANSEN

: Enclosed f.or: consideration at the F'ebruary 24r 1984 meeting


..
L. ' Hearing Pane.l officerts Findings
2. Notice of Appea1
4. nespondentrs Letter of January 27, 1984
Also included is the transcript of the hearing. Oral
argurnent has been seheduled for 1b:00 a.m. on nebiuary 24, 1984.

Enclosures

tGR: Ep

A COPY
I CERTIFY THAT I MA]LED
OFTHEF0REGOING qO'' :"--.!!'

rffi{EsPc,IrEEif et 6iW, tff


*****",tlRST CLASS MAIL'-POSTAGE :1''j
s$'rHEJYe DAY oF
.-
.t,,,ri- .
c*"
,-' .1
la , 1,
t..'
i

BffiIORE TTIE
R5eslyum
DISC]PLII{ARY BOARD
OF TI{E
V{A.SHINGICN STAIE BAR ASSOCIIffICN] v[/.s.B.A.
In re
R. HANSENI,
H\,IILY COUIfIERSTAIEMH,II OF RESPONDEI,TI
An Attorney at Law.

PRM,]MIT{ARY STAIEMENT

ttris discipUrnqf rnatter has ncnr been pending one fuIl year, dr:ring
wflich tjne tLre Reslnndent has rnade innediate reply to all bar inquiries
and formal pleadings. Bar Counsel has now filed an appeal of the Hearings
EX<arniner's reccnrnendation. Responderrt objects to this a;peal on the basis
that it unfairly prejr.rdices her ability to defend herself and to protect
her career and liveUhood. Bar Cor.rrsel j-s well aware, and has been for
many nrrnths, tJ:at by ncxrv Restrnndent is in Mrica wittr her husband. She
has access to no 1ega1 te><ts, no re;nrters, no fellow lavryers to help her
prepare, and none of her files pertaining to ttris matter.
or,wr

And it is not accurate to staLe that l,trs. Flansen brought these circtmr-
stances on herself. Ruanors claim was filed in February of 1983. No later
than Jr:ne, 1983, Ivlrs. I{ansen advised Bar Counsel she ruculd be joining her
husband in Africa by faIl. He assr.:red her ttre rnatter roould be resolved one

way or tlre ottrer long before then. Yet he did nottring to bring tlre rnatter
to hearing r:ntil late October. Ttrus, It{rs. Hansen's plight is not of her
rnaking. As distasteful as receiving any sanction nrmst be, Respondent cannot
adequately defend an a;peaI. Thus she asks ttrat the Board disniss the atr4:ea1

ard adopt the llearings B<arniner's recqnrendations as r,,sritten.


COUNIERSTAIEMENI OF TIIE CASE

Houlever, if the Board chooses to entertain this atr4leal, wtr,at precisely

COI]TTIERSTAf,STE}{I OF RESPOITDMIT - 1
does Bar Cor:nsel object to?: The severity of tlre sanction, to that
and

alone. Ttre dispute between ttre Hearings Srarniner and Cor:nse1 is based on

differing philosophies of jurisprudence and prxrishrerrt. Ivlr. R:ipley has


adopted the view of his "clierrt", Ivlr. Rr:ano - vengeance is ttre goal, to be
pursued "even if it cost him $10,000.00" (@.p. 13) Tlre Exarulner takes a

broader, nxrre enlightened viexr:


We are to look at three entities: ttre offending
lavryrer, other lavryzers and the public. Puni-stwent
per se, is not ttre object, for punistrnent relates
to ttre past, and our concern is wittr the future.
(@. p. 22)
flre Hearings Exarniner recrcanizes DIrs. Itransen is contrite and has learned
frcm ttris o<5:erience. He reconnends issr:ance of a censure. Ttris assures that
the rigid rules Bar Cor"msel states he is attenpting to save frcm deterioration,
(St, in Opp. p. 1), contj-nue to be srforced, even in cases vil:ere tlre infrac-
tion is rnlnor, based on inocperience arrd not due to rnoral tr:rpitude. Indeed

the Exanuiner finds ltrs. I{ansen to have been "a sound lavryrer and a truthful,
honest person, wtro actedin good faith." (Op. p. 20, 22) Suspension r,'nu1d
inordinately ectend her suffering. Justice must consistently fit the "crime",
buL it must also be fajr. Any sanction harsher than that reccrnrended by
ttre Hearings Exarniner would be neittrer.
F'ACTS

Vlith a fsr additional itens, Bar Cor.rnselts statenerrt of tJ:e facts found

by ttre Hearings &<arniner r,rould be acceptable. f irst, the only ccnptaint


presented by Ruano at ttre Jr:ne 2 neeting v*rich is gerrnane to this proceeding

is that he guestionned tkre interest being charged on his four years' overdue
bills. He d"id request ccnplete time records; artd ilirs. Hansen presented those
available to her and offered rnore if he wanted thsn. Ruano did not take up
the offer. (Op.p. 8)
COUISIMSTAf,EMM'W OF RESPONDENI . 2
Second, Bar Cor:nsel states ttrat no written notice of the withdrawal
of funds was given to her client, l4r. Rrano, until f,ourteen days later.
He fails to note that ttre Efcaininer found attenpted nctj-ce by telephone
the same day, and actual notice to Mrs. Ruano the nect day. 16p. p. 6-7)
Ttrird, Bar Cor:nsel claims Mrs. Hansen had no specific authority frcm
Rrano to clajm her fees. On tlre contrarlz, ttre Hearings E<arniner f,or:nd an

agreenent to pay Srdth's fees on an hourly basis and an acquiescence in ttre


sr:bstitution of Hansen as the attorney r:nder ttran agreenent. TLrus, the
sole disptrte raised by Ruano at the tjne tlre fr:nds were wittrdravm was to
tlre interest charged. $<amjner Rupp rmkes a specific find,ing of fact on ttris
poi::t (Op. p. 11) and concludesrat Op. g. 2L, ttrat Rr:ano had no other sulc-

stantial objection and that lulrs. Hanssr was warranted jn her belief that there
was no ottpr dispute.
He also finds l,Irs. Hansen was yolr:g and. inecpenience (Op. p. 10) and
concludes that her error was that of ine<perience, "not of arzarice or greed

or sharp practice or malevolenoe of arry kind." (Op. p. 22)

C0UT{1ER-ARG]ME[{}

A. Ttrc Hearjngs E<aminer Did Not CLraractgrize Bespondentrs


Handling of ttre Trust /{ccor-rnt F\xrds as a Tectu:ical Violation.
Contrarlz to Bar Counselrs challenge here, the Hearings B<ard.ner did riot
characterize tlre Reslnndent's actj-ons in relation to the Ruano firnds as a
nere "techn:ica1t' violation of ttre ettrical rules concerning trust disbursenerrts.
(st. in @. p. 3)

That reference bV the Exanuiner was to the Charles charge, v*ere Bar
Counsel, after a painstaking o<afirination of a full year'of Req>ondent's

tnrst account reoords, was able to discover one instance vr?rere Reslnnderrt
failed to wait for a checl< to clear bank charurels before issuing checks
against it,. (o5>. p. 20) Though Bar bunsel has formally apg:ealed lboth
COU}OIER.STASEMENT OF RESPONDMOI - 3
decisions, his entire argiurrent, save this one erroneous reference, refers
to tlre Rr:ano natter.
B. fhe Hearings Exam:iner Did Not Erroneously Concluge as a l4atter
of law That A Client Cou1d Waive His Rights to F\l:{s in a Trust Agcrcunt.
Ttre Board will search the Ercanriner's @inion in vain for any such
conclusion. Rather ttre Exam:iner finds I4r. Rr:ano agreed years earlier to
pay an hourly rate, failed. to object or pay despite nnnttrly biI1j-ngs, and

ttren first raised his argunents nnnths after funds were trnid (Op. p, tg-20) ,

conveniently allcxrving lvlrs. Hansen to Labor diligerrttr-y on his betralf in the


i-::terim.
C. Ttre il,earings E:<arnlner Did Not Conc1uds ttrat An Attorney l4ay

Witlrdgrw F\:nds In Dispute If ttre Clientts Objection fs-Not I'Heated and

Total. "
Norr,rhere will ttre Board find this conclusion in the subject opinion.
The Heari::gs B<am-iner for:nd that Rr:ano had not disputed the hourly fees
accrued until after tJ:ey wee paid. DR 9-102 (A) (2) specifically per:nits
ttre attorneyrs wittrdrawal of fees due and not disputd frcm trust.
D. Tlre Hearings Examjner Correctly (traracterizes Mrs. Hansenlg
&havior as the ResuIF of Ine<perience; Not Malevolence of Arry Kindrand
Reccnnnends A Sufficiently Harsh Sanction.
This brings the Board to tLre sole qr:estion really in dispute, ttre
severity of the sanction to be inposed. EVen Bar Counsel concedes "substantial
nr:itigating factors including Respondent's relative inocperience, lack of
jrrproper nxrtive and a 'difficult' client." Justice nnrst be consistent, but
it caru:ot be blind to circr.:nnstances.

Based on his decades of practice j-n ttre hrashington Bar and his reputaLion
as a scholar in ethical concerns, the Hearings Exarniner, John N. Rupp, is
well versed in ttre fiduciarlz status of attorneys in relation to their clierrts
COUIfIEII,STAIEMENT OF RESPCNDH\TI - 4
and the authorities cited by Bar Counsel. He did not crcnsider ttris proceeding
as a sinple nratter involving the mishandUng of trust fi:nds, nor did he disniss
Restrnndent's conduct as a trivial nntter" Rather he devoted considerable
ttrought and twenty-ttrree pages of an opi-::ion to analyzing Respondent's actions

based on the Urrusual circrrrstances presented' contrarlr to tl:e auttroritles


cited by Cor:nsel and as acknowledged by !,Ir. Rupp, ttris transaction did ruct

i:lrolve any deliberate attenpt to deprive Rrano of fr-tnds dire him. (oI), p. 20)

E. nesponderrt ttas Been Sr-rbjected. to Unreasonable and Undr:e }lardshiPs

as a Resu1t of ttris Ccnplajnt; No {r:rt}rer Sanction IS Wa:rrantql.


I{ow muc}r additional tine and erpense to the Association and to the

Responderrt must be e>pended before this Corplaint of Mr. Rr.rano can f5na11y

be ptrt to rest? Bar Cor:nsel was afforded an otrportr-rnit1, dr:ring a fuII day's
hearing in Novsricer to present his best evidence and his best argn-lrents in an

effort to secure a more severe sanction. Now that tstris adjudication is ocrn-
p1ete, it is tine for tlre Association and this Board to pursue rnore serious
corplaints.
fhe recrcrnrended sanction of a letter of censure is npre ttran anple penalty
for ttre actions at issue here. Durjng ttre past y€arr Restrnndent has sustained
repeated attacks on her professional integriff and honesty and. has been forced
to g'<pend dozens of ottrerwise productive hor:rs and considerable suns of rmney
defending herself. She has been tlre victim of l4r. Rr:anols ttrreats to take out
ns^rspaper q)ac€ defaming her and her lawfirm, B/en after Respondentrs lanr.r
partners prevailed on her to reimburse Ruano his fuII claim to avoid adverse
pr:blicity and conclude ttre mntroversy, Responderrt was nevertlreless forced to
defmd herself before ttre Bar Association just days before leaving Seattle
to join her husbanl in Africa and in ttre rnidst of a tqzing litigation schedule'
Restrnndent's husband, famity, friends and associates can attest to her deep

sufferi:ng a11d snotional strain, wtrich krave affected her professional and personal
COUNIERSTAIEMMflI OE RESPCNDENTI - 5
life to this date. Respondent had arrticipated a move to Afrj-ca and an
ad.justnrent to life overseas, but Bar Cor:nsel j-nsists on prolonging ttris

painful and dsnoralizing affair.


ff the Board sees fit to va4z frqn ttre ltrearjngs n<ardner's reocfinenda-
tj-on, it. should only be to lift all sanction based on Responderrt's actions
and tlre proceedings to date. As the Hearings B<aminer noted,

Respondent just did rot understand the Ruanos


of ttris r,ucrld. To her the case was over, and
tlre fee wlrich was billed was due. But to Ruano,
tLe case was over, and now we negotiate about
the fee. To her that was not good faith. Tro
Rr:ano it was ordinarlz business. (Op. p. 12)

As lrlr. Rtrpp acla:orrtfledged, no sanction is necessaqz to ring crrntrition


frcrn lrfrs. Ilansen. Stre has suffered through a painful ethical education,
"tlre j-:ron tr,as entered her souI." (Op. p.22) Her career and her professional
life need be hanred no more.

DNIED ttris 2nd day of Februarlz, 1984.


Respectfully sulxnitted,

CI)UI{IERSITAIEMENI OF RESPCDIDMfI - 6
'!;
a o flr-

I s e s84
oF -,B',fiiffi ,flEfi'o$', 3;ill'il1*"^33$?;o$rB
2

3 In re }TS.BT"
4 EMTTY R. HANSEN, ORDER ADOPTING
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
b An Attorney at Lavr. A}ID MODIFYtrNG RECOMMENDATION

I This appeal by bar counsel of the He'aring Panel Officerrs


I decision came before the'Disciplinary Board at its February 24,
I L984, meeting and'the'Board having coflsidered the record in
10 t,his matter as well as bar counsel's staLenent in opposi.tion
1l and respondentrs counterstatement and being fu1ly advised, it
L2 is hereby
l3 ORDEREDthat the'Ilearing Panel'Officer's f indings and
t4 conclusions be adopted ras submitted and it 'is further
l5 ORDERED that the Hearing Panel Officer's recommendation is

t6 urodified to provide that respondent receive a Letter of Censure


t7 for her mishandling of Frank &uanots funds and that respondent
18 receive an advisory lett,er for her withdrawing trust funds in
t9 the Charleg case before the underlying check had cleared the
20 banking process.
2t This change from a tetter of Censur.e to an advisory letter
22 for withdrawing trust funtls in the Charles.case before the
23 underlying check had cleared the banking process is necessary
24 because, in the Boardts opinion, this is q technical violation
25 of tn'e Code of Professional Responsibilit,y not warranting the
26

27

WlsruNcroN Smre Ban AssocrATIoN


ORDER 505 Madison Street
eage 1 of 2 SBATTLE, WlsntNoroN 98 104
(nq 622-6026
imposition of a disciplinary sanction.
I
The vote on this, matter was 9-1.
2
Dat,ed *is;2?6aaY of February , Lg84.
3

4
WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
J

I g J'. Gr an
Chairman
I Disciplinary Board
I
l0
ll
L2

r3

t4
15

l6
17

IB

19

20

2l AT
T.::LASS
,, ot{ THE

23

24

25

26

27

WnsnwcroN Srerr Bln AssocIATIoN


ORDER 505 Madison Street
Page 2 of2 SrarrlE, WasnncroN 98104
Q06) 622-6026
B5I'ONE ?HE T]ISOTFLTI{AHY BOARI)
O} Hg WASHTNGTON SrArE BAR A$SOdIATI*N

fn re
tr]}III,Y R. HAI{SHN, HO[I0$; fiO DTSHISS C0UNT IV
AI{} Irscrptrr}(AnY BSAAD ' S
An .$,ttorney at taw. OR}EN N&IATTiTS rHERX'IS

a, I{aNSEI\I, and moves the }is_


col'Is8 Not/ Respondeat, fiMrLy
ci-plinary tsoard, pursuant to RrrD 5.6, to d.isuiiss count rv herein
and' to stri-ke thab portion of the: Board's ord.er dated
February
29, 1984r as it relates to the sald charr.es matter.
Iated this __Ia-UE_ day o_f, Harch, 1984.

RtrGN'XTB Respon

W.S.B.A.

Mg-}rON TO }rsp1r$8 COUNr rv


;tND ORDEB RmLAtfmC fllnHE,IO
LEGAL DEPAf,TiIENT

D]RECT LINE
(206) 622.6026

WtEnTNGToN Srere Ban AssoclATroN


sos MADtgoN sr., sEATTLE, wRsHINGToN 98104
ROBERT T. FABRELL STAFF ATTORNEYS
GENERAL COUNSEL ROBERT D, WELDEII
BHEA J. ROLFE
LELAND G. RIPLEI MARK W. MUENSTER
SENIOR STAFF ATTOHNEY DEBORAH DOWD
MEMORANDUM

to: Disciplinar,y Board


FROM: Leland G. Ripley, Senior Staff AtLorney
DATE: April 16, 1984
RE: Disciplinary Proceedings - In re Emily R. Hansen

It the February 24,, l?84, neeting,the Board vot,ed to rnodify


thehearingpane1officer|gre6ommendationof,twoLettersof
censure to one Letter of censune and an advisory retter.
. slncg RLD 5.6 provides that an advi:so'ry letter,.,shaLl not be
issued when a conplaint ie dismleee,d,following a hearingr' Ms.'
Hansen hasfiled i motion to dis;is; a;;;a in:
.i .,.

Since the ruLesrdo prohibit this adlvisorlt letter, bar counsel


hasnoobjection,tothis..motion..:
ATfACHED DOCUMENTS :

1. . Motion to Dismiss
:2.
"

order Adopting Findings and conclusions':and,mad'tfying


Recorrmendation
3. Fi;;il;;l-c.i"r"sions and Recommendarion

IiiSR: gp

cc:! Emily R. Hansen ftfl*


B 6q"
nr-"
.Uk
\/ t Li[*

I CERT'FY THAT

11I

CL,E.SS
ON TFIE YOF

$TATE tsAR
I BEFORE THE DISCIPTINARY fu{AY 2 BoARD p84
OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
2
l/[|.s.B.A.
3
In re

4
EMILY R. HANSEN, ORDER MODIFYING FEBRUARY 29,
1984 RECOMMENDATION AND
b
DISMISSING COUNT IV
An Attorney at Law.
6

I
This matter came before the Disciplinary Board at its
I April 27, 1984 meet.ing upon respondentrs motion to dismiss Count
9
IV and to strike that part of the Boardrs order directing that
r0
she receive an advisory letter. The Board being convinced that
l1
the motion should be granted, it is hereby
t2
ORDERED that the Boardrs order of February 21, 1984 be
13
modified so that it is thelBoardrs recommendation that Count IV,
14
the Charles matter, be dismissed.
t5
The vote on this matter was 10-0.
r6 I
Dated this t-ll 0 " day of May , Ig84.
t7
IB
WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
19

20

2t Thomas Jero reenan, c


Di sc ipl ina
,.t
CERTIF ICATE ERVIC
23 Presented
I CERTIFY THAT D A COPY
24

25 p
W
26 AGE
GE,BIIEIED/FIRST CLASS

27 oNTHEZfi-\ DAY OF,

ORDER MODIFYING 2/ 2WRAtNcroN srers gan xsibitlttoN


RECOMMENDATION & D I SMI SSIS{B Vtadison Street
COUNT IV SEanrLE, We,sruNctot t 98104
(nq 622-6026
BEF'ORE THE DISCTPTINARY BOAR
t OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCrA TMAY 6 ffi4
2

3
In re W.S.B.A.
4
EMILY R. HANSEN, STATEMENT OF
COSTS AND EXPENSES
b
An Attorney at Law.

a
The following are the costs and expenses claimed by the Bar

I Association in connection with the above proceeding:


9

l0 Court Reporter Appearance $tao. oo

t1 Attorneyrs fees (pursuant to


RLD 5.7) 350.00 l

t2 Total :
i..

$S3,0.00
13
The chairperson of the Board is requested to enter an order
t4
assessing costs again's't the respondent attorney in the above
l5
amount. n
16
Dared rhis ru"ay of May, 1984.
17

18

19

20 an G. Ripley
CffiffiTiFIRATF tr}r: ,{:l;iii\"ji,r*,}tr
'- r ae:,-* d l* tJ il_ r, U
State Bar Counse
2t I CERTIFY ]'I4AT I !l-fiD A
22 TO

23 rVoL*a_
tuh. D.e,
24 PO$TA*r rD, "o5zt)
25

26

27

STATEMENET OF W,qsHrNcroN Sure Ba,n AssocrATroN


COSTS & EXPENSES 505 Madison Street
Snerrun, WlsnwcroN 98104
(206) 622-6026
I ^- *,.:*:?*-:I*^P,',::*3*',Illt- t91l?- rfr Eil
:.oFTHEwAsIIINGTqNsrAT'gBARAssocIAF,oN,.**,..''." nE l:t-' :
a,

In re
3

4
EMILY R. HANSEIT, W.S.Bf,.
An Attorney at Law.
5

6
.]
A deeis,ion of the Disciplinagy Board,.,"recommending a'l Letter
I

B
of Censure was filed in this matter on May /., 1984, and neither
thelrespondent nor state bar'counsel.has fiLed a timelylappeal.
9 l

Now therefore,
t0 .l

(g), the decision in


ll .. IS ORDBRED that pursuant to
IT RLD 6.7

t2
this matter is FINAL.
I
13
Dated this' gr"l day of Malr L984.

l4
ASS@IATION
l5
r6
17
Chairpers Discipl inary
18

19
cEffiTt FIQATE CIf, $i,Effi,VjfiE
20
I CffiTri:Y THlr,T t i.iA:!-[3 A COPY
2t
,,
23

24

25

26

27

WassmcroN Sum Ban AssoctATIoN


505 Madison Street
Srlrrrr, WesHrNGroN 98 I 04
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD
TIIE WASHINGTON STATE 3AR ASSOCIATION

In re
EMILY R. HAI{SEN, R"ESPONDENT' S EXCEPTIONS TO STATEMENT
OT COSTS AI\ID EXPENSES
An Attorney at Law.

COMES NOIJ the Respondent Attorney, EMILY R. HAIISEN, and, pursuant to RLD

5.7(d)(2), fll-es the following exceptlons to the Assoclatlonrs Statement of


Costs and Expenses:
1. The costs and expenses sought by the Association rirere nel-ther reasonably
nor necessarily incurred in this proceeding. RLD 5.7(b). Throughout this tnguiry,
Respondent Attorney was anxious to resol-ve this matter on a reasonable basis.Bar
Counselrs insistence on a severe sanction, not warranted by the circumstances,
necessitated the hearing and appeal herein.
2. Respondent has suffered a great deal over a matter which the hearings
examiner and Disciplinary Board have found to warrant a letter of censure, not the
shocking thirty days suspension persistently demanded by Bar CounseL^over the past
year and one-half. Respondent has paid dearly, both financially and emotionally,
for this ordeal. As it fal1s with the discretion of the Board to assess costs in
appropriate eases (RLD 5.7 (a) ), it is just that no further costs be imposed. RLD

s.7(e).
3. Bar Counsel has failed to ti.mely file his Statement of, Costs and Expenses,

pursuant to RLD 5.7(d):


. when a decision of the Board imposing a sanction is
served on the respondent lawyer after Board review, the Associa-
tion shal1 have 10 days in which to file a statement of costs and
expenses iu thercffice of the Association.

Ihe decision of the Board, entered in late February, 1984, r^ras served by nail-
RXSPONDENTIS EXCEPTIONS - 1
l+

ForeLgn Servlce Instltute


1400 Key Boul-evard
Arll.ngton, VA 22249
June 4, 1984

ltromas Jerome Greenan


Chalrpereon, Dlscl-pllnary Board
Washington State Bar Assoeiatton
505 Marllson Street
Seattle, I{A 98104
REHH-H-B
Re: In re Emlly R. Hansen, An Attorney at Law
0rder Denylng Costs and ExPenses W.S.B.A.
Dear l'1r. Greenan:

Enclosed flnd my Excepttons to Statement of Costs and Expenses in the


above-captioned proceeding. This pleading ls in response to the Statement
prepared by Bar Counsel, which I received on May 30, 1984.
I also enelose a proposed order denying the assessment requested by
Bar Counsel.
Very truLy yours,

enclosures
cc: Leland G. Ripley
Senior Staff AttorneY
Washington State Bar Associ-ation
BEFORE NIE DISCIPLINARY BOARD
OF THE WASIIINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

In re
EMrLY R. HANSEN, ORDER DENYING COSTS AND EXPENSES

An Attorney at Law.

The Associati.on having fil-ed tts Statement of Costs and Expenses; Respondent

Attorney having filed her Exceptions thereto; the Board having reviewed said
p1-eadings and the records and files hereln and finding it to be Ln the interest
of justlce to deny the assessment of costs and expenses agal-nst Respondent Attorney;

it is hereby

OR)ERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Associationrs request for an order
assessing costs against the Respondent Attorney be and is hereby denied.
DATED this day of June, L984.

THOMAS JEROME GREENAN


Chairperson, Disciplinary Board
Washington State Bar Association

Presented by:

Respondent AttorneY
Foreign Service Institute
1-400 Key Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22209

ORDER DEMING COSTS - 1


BEFORE THE Julll 12 084.
I DISCIPLINARY BOARD

2 wAsurNcror,r sriflntHf" AssocrArroN W.S.B.A.


3

4
In re
5
EMILY R. HANSEN, BAR COUNSEL'S RESPONSE TO
RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO
An Attorney at Law. STATEMENT OF COSTS AND
6
EXPENSES
7
FACTS
B

9
On February 29, L984, a Disciplinary Board Order bras signed
r0
adopting the findings and conclusions and modifying the hearing
ll panel officer's recommendation. Ttre Board recommended that
l2 respondent receive a letter of censure and an advisory letter

r3
for the violation found regarding Count IV. On March 22, L984,
14
Ms. Hansen filed a Motion to Dismiss Count IV. This Motion was
15
heard at the April 27, L984, meeting and the Board, by order
l6 dated May 2, L9B4 recommended dismissal of Count IV.
l7 On May 3, L984, the Association's Statement of Costs and

18
Expenses was filed. On May 22, L984, an order declaring the

19
Board's decision to be final was signed.
20 ARGUMENT

21
1. fhe Statement of Costs and Expenses was Timely Filed.
,, RLD 5.7(d), provides for service of a statement of costs

23 and expenses within 10 days after a decision of the Board


24 imposing a sanction is served upon the respondent lawyer.
25 While the Board's initial decision was filed by order dated
26 February 29, 1984, Ms. Hansen moved to strike part of that
27 order and an order modifying that February 29, L984, order was
BAR COUNSEL'S RESPONS\PASfiNcroN Srerp Ban AssocrArroN
RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTf ONS TO 505 Madison Street
STATEMENT OF COSTS AND NDERtsH8EWlsruNcroN 98104
Pase 1 of 3 (206) 622-6026
I o
signed on May 2, L984. On that date there was a decision
I imposing a sanction upon Ms. Hansen and thus a statement of
,
costs and expenses had to be filed within ten days of May 2,
3
1984. Ttris time limit was met since the statement was filed on
4
May 3, 1984.
:)
2. The Costs and Ex Eiled ainst Ms. Hansen Are
6
Reasonable.
7
Bar counsel did file an appeal from the hearing panel
B
officer's decision based upon the argument that Ms. Hansen's
9
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility required a
l0
more severe sanction than the two Letters of Censure recommend.-
ll ed by the hearing panel officer. TLre Disciprinary Board did
12
not agree.
l3
Since bar counsel's appeal, while permitted by the rules,
L4
was not successful, the Statement of Costs and Expenses in-
15
cluded only the cost of a court reporter, not the cost of the
16
transcript. Additionally, the attorney fee requested was the
t7
minimum amount for a matter which becomes final without Board
l8
review. RLD 5.7(c) states that these amounts "shaII conclu-
L9
sively be presumed reasonable."
20
The Chairman has authorlty to assess costs and expenses.
2t
The costs and expenses requested are fair and reasonable and in
c, et

23

24

25

26

27

BAR COUNSEL I S RESPONqPASfivcToN Srarn B^n AssocrArroN


RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO 505 Madison Street
STATEMENT OF COSTS AND BERfftrEFWessrNcroN 98104
Page 2 of 3 (206) 622-6026
o o
view of the fact that Ms. Hansen did violate the Code of pro-
I fessional Responsibil ity, should be a sessed against her.
2
DATED this day of
3

5
Le RipIey
6 State Bar
7

B
CHBIIFICATE ef $ffi V${is_
9 I CIRTIFY TI{AT LI,IAILED A COPY

10

ll
,
t2 fl Pi?IP

I3
$I-ATE BAft COUI"{:T
t4
l5
l6
t7
18

L9

20

2t
22

23

24

25

26

27

BAR COUNSEL'S RESPONSE TO


REspoNDEN* s siiiiiiA$g$fr"IoN Sra.rr Ban AssocrArroN
srArEMENr oF cosrs AND E53Fffiiffid#?,f.:K'jgoo
Page 3 of 3 1206) 622-6026
LEGAL DEPARTilIENT

DIBECT LINE
(206) 622.6026

WrsHtNcroN' Srere Ben AssocrATroN


5OB MIIDISON ST., SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I 04
FOBERT T. FARRELL STAFF ATTORNEYS
GENERAL COUNSEL ROBERT D. WELDEN
RHEA J. ROLFE
LELAND Gi RIPLEY MEMORANDUM IIiARK W. I'UENSTER
SENIOR STAFF.ATTORNEY DEBORAH DOWI'

TO: .Ttromas ,J. Greenan, Chairman


FROMc Leland G. Riple11, :senior Staff Attorney
DATE: June 11, 1984
sUBJECT: statement of costs and Expenses Exceptions of Emiry
R. Hansen

Enclosed are copies of the materials from Me Hansen


which were received whilJ I was away from the office. +
J. am'also
enclosing a copy of my response for y6us review.

cct Emily R. Hansen

I CIftTIFY TI.IAT I MAILED A


t'

Fffir:rit=;#,,,.I
Cffi:i:r:.l3T,I*LSS
aNrHE(?WAy oF

STATE tsAR COUNSE


OI$IPLI$TARY BOA8O

DIf;EgT LINE
1206) 622€026
tI

lAhsxlxcToN SrarE B*n AssocrA?rox


5O5 MADISON ST., SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I04

May 30, 1984

John N. Rupp
Attorney at Law
1600 Peoples National Bank Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98171-
Re: In re Etnily R. Hansen
Dear Mr. Rupp:
on behalf of the entire Discipi.inary Board r wish to
extend our thanks for expendinq tha time and effort to act
as hearing offieer in tlre above case
, For your information, following entry of your findings
and, an appeal by state bar counseL to the oisciplinary Boird,
the Board modified your recommendation to proviSe that Ms.
Hansen receive a single Letter of censure ior her handLing of
Prank Ruano's funds. This decision is of course not a criti-
cism of the qualj-ty of your d,ecision, but refLects the fact
that the Board, may frequently view a matter in a somewhat dif-
ferent light. than an individual hearinq officer.
OnIy through the assistance of voluntary hearing officers
can a lawyer disciprine systern function as etricientiy as it
now does. You may properly be proud of your contribut,ion to
this system.
Sincerely,

Thbhas J.
'ilr
Gr Chairperson
Disciplinary;/&ran,
z Board
TJG: al
F {d I v{ff

WesxrNGToN Srlre Ben AssoclATtoN


5O5 MI\DISON ST., SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98t 04
12061 522-6026

l'tay 29, 1984

Ms. Emily R. Hansen


Attorney at Law
American Embassy
Ouagadougou Upper Volta
Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Ms. Ilansen:
This LETTER OF CENSURE is being sent to you pursuant to Rule
5.5(a) of the Rules for Lawyer Disciprine, and pursuant to the
decision of the Disciplinary Board which became final on May 2l
1984.
As found by the Disciplinary Boardr you represented Frank
Ruano and obtained a judgment on his Uefrltt. iou obtained the
funds to pay the judgment from the clerk of the court, and
deposi.ted these funds in your trusL account. While you knew that
Mr. Ruano disputed a portion of your fee, you removed the toLa1
amount of your fees from trust.
?he foregoing conduct constitutes a violation of DR 9-102(A),
which requires a lawyer to maintain funds in trust if a la.wyerfs
right, to these funds is disputed by Lhe client, and merits this
LETTER OF CENSURE. Your actions in this malter bring discredit
upon yourself and the 1ega1 profession and show a disregard for
the high traditions of honor expected from members of trris
profession.
Now' THEREFORE, You ARE HEREBY CENSURED by the Board of
Governors of the Washington State Bar Association for your acts
and conduct above described. This censure will be made a part of
your pernanent record wiLh the Washington State Bar Association,
and will be considered along wilh other evidence in regard to any
future complaints against you.
Your privilege to practice 1aw in the State of Washington is
based upon the finding that you are a person of good moral
character, and upon your commitment to abide by the rules Eovern-
ing the conduct of members of the Bar. The Board of Governors
expects all of your future conduct as a lawyer to be consistent
Ms. Emily R. Ilansen
Page Two
May 29, 1984

with that finding as to your character and with a continuing


mitment on your part to the letter and spirit of those rulei. com-

WASTIING?ON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION


-"_.t'

ay
/r': '-;)-...-x
^:'u{-ia;--Y{--{O{, <:
^- -

President )

t
1
BETORE T}IE DISCIPI;INAR.Y BOARD
OF fHE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIA?ION
2

3
In re
{|A
EMILY R. HANSE}tr, NOTICE OF DISCTPLINE

J
An At,torney aL Law,

I
PLEASE 9AKE NOTICE that The above-named Washington State
B
attorney has been disciplined as follows:
Ordered to. receive letterof censure, May 22, L984
9

l0
1I
t2 A copy of the decision imposing discipline is encloserl.
13
This notice is provided pursuant to provisions of the Washington
Rules for Lawyer Discipline (RLD).
14

1) DATED this 4 0h
L-//{dav of fiUll\ , 1eB Y
16

t7
18
a
t9 State
20

2t
x Supreme Court of Washington
x U.S. DistricE CourE, W.D, Washington
,, x U.S. District Court, E.D. -v{ashington
x tJ.S. CourE of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
ae Oi,her jurisdictions where at,torney admiEted:
,A
.)<

26

,.?

IiOTICE OF DISCIPLINE
lVessmcroN Siers B*n .4.ssocrA?loN
5C5 l,{adison Sueet
Se.rrirs, W.rsmxcrox 981 04
LEGAL DEPAflTMENT

DIRECT LINE
(2oo) 622-6026

Wesurr'rcTcN SrerE Ba,a AssocrATroN


505 MADISON ST.,SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
ROBERT T. FARFELL
GEIiERAL COUNSEL May 29, 1984
STAFF ATTORNEYS
ROBERT O, }YEI-DET{
SHEA J. ROLFE
LELAND G. RIPI.EY IIAFIK }Y. MUENSTER
S€NIOE STAFF A'TOFN€Y DESORAH DOWD

Mr. Prank Ruano


L67 44 39th A:.zenue N. E.
Seattle, WA 98155
Re: Your complaint against attorney *ni1y R. Hansen
Dear Mr. Ruano:
As you know, following the investigation of your complaint
against attorney Fmily R. Hansen, a formal complaint was
filed by this office charging her with professional miscen-
Fr:n{-

As you also know a disciplinary hearing was held on


l.lovember1, 1983. As a result of that hearing the. hearing
panel officer fi.led Findings, Conclusions and a Recommendation
that Ms. Hansen receive two Letters of Censure.
Bar counsel filed an appeal from this recommendation
arguing ttrat Ms. Hansen should receive a thirty day suspension
for her mishandling of client. funds. This appeal was consid-
ered by the Disci-plinary Board and they voted to issue Ms,
Hansen one Letter of Censure for her conduct in hanCling
your funds.
A Letter of Censure is a formal finding of misconduct
which becomes part of an attorney's permanent reccrd with
the Association, where it i.vi11 be ccnsidered i-n the event of
any future cornplaints.
Thank you for bringing this problern to our attention,
and assisting us in fulfilling our Cuty tc discipline attor-
neys who have been guilty of significarlru professional :nis-
cond.uct.
Yours tru1y,

Lela;rd G. S.icley
Senior Staff Attornev
LGR.: a1
I a IE]tEtEIEII[fIE iRt
JUN a tUJ
BEFORE THE
r €84
I DISCIPLINARY BOARD
OF THE
, WASHTNGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION w.s.B.A.
3

4
In re )
)

5
EMILYR. HANSEN, ) onoER AssEssrNG cosrs
) eNp EXPENSES
An Attorney at Law. )
6
)
)
a

B
Association having filed its statement of costs and
T1he
Expenses herein on May 3, L984 and having served the statement
9

l0 on the respondent effective May 6, L984, and the time for fi1-
ll ing exceptions thereto pursuant to RLD 5.7 (b) (2) having ex-
t2
pired, it is hereby ORDERED
r3
That cost and expenses are assessed against respondent
t4 Emily R. Hansen in the amount of $530.00.
l5 DArED this 2/ .t day of "Tune, 1984.
r6

t7
rB rperson
Disciplinary
r9

20

2L *mffiT$ FICATffi ffi F SEf"Irulir.;ffi


,,
23
Fffifififffift{ffiin AT _- I
24
C1ffif;TIiR$I" CLASS M,4.iL, POS riuE
-;,
25 r.sr" :;?N.DAY ci.- 2f?14* 1

26 slrii"E B,Ars o0ut\$rL


.tn

ORDER ASSESSING
WasnrNcrou SrlrB Ban AssocIATIoN
COSTS AND EXPENSES 505 Madison Street
Page I of 1 Srerrlp, WesnINcroN 98104
(206) 622-6026
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD
OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

In re
EMrLY R. HAI{SEN, RESPONDENTT S REQUEST FOR
REVIEI{ OT' ORDER ASSESSING
An Attorney at Law. COSTS AI{D EXPENSES

COMES NOW the Resondent A,ttorney, EItrLY R. HANSEN, and, pursuant to


RLD 5.7(e)(1), requests review by the Diseipl-inary Board of that order dated

June 21, L984, assessing costs and expenses against Respondent. This request
is based on the pleadings previously filed in this proceeding on the grounds
that an assessment of costs is contrary to the interest of justice and that

the assessed costs and expenses qrere neither reasonably nor necessarily incurred.
Based on the foregoing, the Disciplinary Board of the Washington State
Bar Association is respeetfully urged to enter an order modifying the order
of June 2L, Lg84," O, u.rrring said assessment.
Dated this 27th day of June, L984.

Respondent Attorney

Talleyrand Building
American Embassy Paris
APO New York 09777

RESPONDENTIS REQUEST FOR REVIEW


OF ORDER ASSESSING COSTS
BEFORE TIIE DISCIPLINARY BOARD
OF rllE WAS}IINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

In re
H"IILY R. HANSEN,. ORDER MODTFYING ORDER
ASSESSING COSTS AT.ID
An Attorney at Law. EXPEI{SES *'"

An o,rder having been entered on June 21, l-984, assesslng costs and

expenses against Respondent Attorney; Respondent having requested review


of said order by the Disciplinary Board; the Board having reviewed said
pleadings and the records and files herein and finding it to be in the
interest of justice to deny the assessment of costs and expenses against
Respondent Attorney; it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the order of June 21-, Lg84,
"*"""""irrg
costs in the amount of $530.00 against Respondent Attorney be and the same

is hereby reversed; it is further


oRDERED, ADJIIDGED AND DECREED that no costs nor expenses be assessed
against Respondent Emily R. Hansen.

DATED this day of , 1984.

WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

Thomas J. Greenan, Chairperson


Disciplinary Board

ORDER MODIFYING ORDER


ASSESSING COSTS AND EXPENSES
RqPq-XFB
Talleyrand Butlding W.S.B.A.
Amerl.can Embassy Paris
APO New York 09777

Dlsciplinary Board
llashington State. Bar AssocLatlon
505 Madtson Street
Seattl-e, lIA 98104
Re: In re Emtly R. Ilansen, An Attorney at Law
Request for Review of Order Assesslng Costs

Dear Members of the Disciplinary Board:

Enclosed please find Respondentrs Request for Review by the Dis-


ciplinary Board of the Order Assessing Costs and Expenses in thie pro-
ceeding. I also enclose a proposed order modifying said order of June
2T, 1984, to deny the.assessment of these costs.
Very truly yours,

6-rQ-4L^^--)
(.
Euril-y *rr""o

enclosures
cc: Leland G. Riplgy
Senior Staff Attorney
!,Iashington State Bar Association
LEGAI. DEPARTilEilT

DIRECT LINE
(206) 622-6026

T"s\Ws
WesnrxcToN Srlre Ben Assocrerlox
SO5 MADISON gT., SEATTLE, WA.SHTNGTON 98I 04
ROBEFT T. FARNELL. STAFF ATTOENEYS
GENERAL COUNSEL ROBERT D. WELDEN
MEMORANDUM RHEA J. ROLFE
LELAND G. RIPI.EY ITIABK W. Ut EIISTER
SENIOR STAFF ATJORNEY DEBOFAH DOIYD .

TOt Itre Disciplinary Board


FROM:
DATE:
.

lelan! o,-,"itt;y,- i."i"r staf f Attorne1yffi- l

SUBJECT: Protes.t. of As:sessment of Costs and Expenses In re


Emily R. Hansen
Pursuant.rto .RLD,5.7 (e) (1),, Ms. Ilansen has requested Board 6f
RevLew of the attached Order ,Assessing Cost" .rra' e"p.hser.--gat
-th!
counsel reconmends af f irming the chaiiman's f; r;:
sons set out in the ilune L2, Lg84, r""porru". "ia"r
ATTACHED. DOCU!{ENTS

1. Order Assessing Costs'ru:d Expenses.


2, Respondent's Request for Review with attachurents.
3. Bar counsel's Response, dated .June 12, 1984"

ce:'Emily R.. Ilansen


a
Jtrll A 1 €84
I BEFORE THE
DISCIPTINARY BOARD
OF THE
2
WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION us.B.A.
3

4
In re
D
EMILY R. HANSEN, ORDER ASSESSING COSTS
AND EXPENSES
6
An Attorney at Law.

I Ihe Association having filed its statement of Costs and


I Expenses herein on May 3, 1984 and having served the statement

l0 on the respondent effective May 6, 1994, and the time for fil_
ll ing exceptions thereto pursuant to RLD 5.7(b) (2) having ex_
t2
pired, it is hereby ORDERED
13
Ftrat cost and expenses are assessed against respondent
L4
Enily R. Hansen in the amount of S530.00.
15 DATED this 2/ *t day of June, 1984.
l6
t7
1B -.rv8r€ v a va rperson
Disciplinary
I9
20

2L
.), |.,IA,ILED A CCIPY

23

24

25

26
€tn

ORDER ASSESSING
WasgrNcroN Srars Ban AssocrATroN
COSTS AND EXPENSES
505 Madison Street
Page 1 of 1 Searrr, WesnrNcroN 98104
(206) 622-6026
RqP 2m4
Talleyrand Building
American Embassy Paris
W.S.B.A. APO New York 09777

Disciplinary Board
Washington State Bar Associ-ation
505 Madison Street
Seattle, WA 98104

Re: In re Emily R. Hansen, An Attorney aE. Law


Request for Review of Order Assessing Costs

Dear Members of the Disciplinary Board:

Encl-osed p1-ease f ind Respondentrs Request for Review by the Dis-


cipl-inary Board of the Order Assessing Costs and Expenses in thie pro-
ceeding. I also enclose a proposed order modifying said order of June
2T, L984, to deny the assessment of these costs.
Very trul-y yours,

6",E-+t,-*J
Emily R. Hansen

enelosures
cc: Leland G. Riplgy
Senior Staff Attorney
Washi-ngtonState Bar Association
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD
OF TIIE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

In re
EMILY R. IIANSEN, RESPONDENTI S REQUEST FOR
REVIEW OF ORDER ASSESSING
An Attorney at Law. COSTS AND EXPENSES

COMES NOW the Resondent Attorney, EMILY R. HANSEN, and, pursuant to


RLD 5.7(e)(1), requests review by the Disciplinary Board of that order dated
June 21, 1984, assessing costs and expenses against Respondent. This request

is bbsed on the pleadings previously filed in this proceeding on the grounds


that an assessment of costs is contrary to the interest of justice and that
the assessed costs and expenses were neither reasonably nor necessarily incurred.
Based on the foregoing, the Disciplinary Board of the Washington State
Bar Association is respectfull-y urged to enEer an order modifying the order
of June 21, L984, by denying said assessment.
Dated this 27th_ day of June, L984.

LY M HANSEN
Respondent Attorney

Talleyrand Building
American Embassy Paris
APO New York 09777

RESPONDENTI]S REQUEST FOR REVIEId


OF ORDER ASSESS]NG COSTS
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD
THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

In re
EMILY R. HAI{SEN, RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO STATEMENT
OF COSTS A}ID E)PENSES
An Attorney at Law.

COI'IES IIOW the Respondent Attorney, EMILY R. IIANSEN, and, pursuant to RLD

5.7(d)(2), fll-es the folLowing exceptions to the Associationrs Statement of


Costs and Expenses:
1. The costs and expenses sought by the Association rrere neither reasonably
nor necessaril-y incurred in this proceeding. RLD 5.7(b). Throughout this lnquiry,
Respondent Attorney was anxious to resol-ve this matter on a reasonable basis.Bar
Counsel-rs iasistence on a severe sanction, not warranted by the circumstances,
necessitated the hearing and appeal herein.
2. Respondent has suffered a great deal over a matter which the hearings
examiner and Diseiplinary Board have found to r,rarrant a letter of censure, not the
shocking thirty days suspension peroistentLy demanded by Bar Counsel.over the past
year and bne-half. Respondent has paid dearly, both financial-l-y and emotionally,
for this ordeal. As it fal1s with the diseretion of the Board to assess eosts in
appropriate cases (RtD 5.7(a)), it is just that no further costs be imposed. RLD

s.7 (e) .

3. Bar CounseL has failed to timel-y fiLe his Statement of Costs and Expenses,
pursuant to RLD 5.7(d):
. when a decision of the Board imposing a sanction is
served on the respondenE lawyer after Board review, the Associa-
tion shal1 have 10 days in which to file a statement of costs arid
expenses irr thercffiee of the Association.

The declsion of the Board, entered in late February, 1984, hras served by mail
RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS - 1
ln west Afrlca upon the Respondent Ln-early llarch, 1984. Bar counser failed to
fl"le the requtslte of Costs and Expenses wLth the AssocLatlon unttL
Statement
May 3, Lg$4,(recelved by Respondent on May 30,1984),
more than elxty days fol-
lowLng the service of the Board's declslon on Respondent,
well- beyond the rulers
ten day Llnlt' Therefore, no assessment of costs is available to the Assoctation.
the foregolng, the chairperson of the Board is respectfully urged
Based upon

to enter an order denying the assessment of any costs against Respondent.


Dated this 4th day of June, 1984.

LY R. EN
Respondent Attorney

Until June 29, L9B4: After June 29, L9B4:


Foreign Serviee Institute American Embassy pari-s
1400 Key Boulevard york
Arlington, VA APO New York, New Ogl77
22209

RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS _ 2
- ^

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD


THE WASTIINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

In re )
)
EMILY R. HANSEN, ) ORDER MODIFYING ORDER
) ASSESSING COSTS AND
An AttorneSr at Law. ) EXPENSES
)

An order having been entered on June 21, L984, assessing costs and

expenses against Respondent Attorney; Respondent having requested review


of said order by the Disciplinary Board; the Board having reviewed said
pleadings and the records and files herein and finding it to be in the
interest of justice to deny the assessment of costs and expenses against
Respondent Attorney; it is hereby
ORDERED' ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the order of June 21, L984, assessing
costs in the amount of $530.00 against Respondent Attorney be and the same

is hereby reversed; it is further


ORDERED, ADJIIDGED AND DECREED that no costs nor expenses be assessed
against Respondent Emily R. Hansen.
DATED this day of L984.

WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION

Thomas J. Greenan, Chairperson


Disciplinary Board

ORDER MODIFYING ORDER


ASSESSING COSTS AND EXPENSES
a **,o,=ni\/rrarn
BEFoRE THE U \ jUi'l
I 1? Xg84
DISCIPLINARY BOARD
, OF THE
WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION 1/1I.s.B.A.
3
In re
4

) EMILY R. HANSEN, BAR COUNSEL'S RESPONSE TO


RESPONDENT I S EXCEPTIONS TO
An Attorney at Law. STATEMENT OF COSTS AND
6
EXPENSES
t

FACTS
B

On !'ebruary 29, Lg84, a Disciplinary Board Order was signed


I
10
adoptinE the findings and conclusions and modifying the hearing

1l
panel officer's recommendation. fhe Board recommended that
t2 respondent receive a letter of censure and an advisory letter
l3 for the violation found regarding count rv. on March 22, Lgg4,
L4
Ms- Hansen filed a Motion to Dismiss Count fV. ftris Motion was

t5 heard at the April 27,1984r meeting and the Board, by order


r6
dated May 2, L984 recomnended dismissal of Count IV.
L7
On ltay 3, 1984, the Association,s Statement of Costs and

18
Expenses was fited. On May 22, Lgg4-, an order declaring the
l9 Board's decision to be final was signed.
20 ARGUIvIENT

2t 1. lhe statemen_t of costs and Expenses was Timely Filed.


,, RrD 5. 7 (d, ) , provi.des for service of a statement of costs
23 and expenses within 10 days after a decision of the Board
24 imposing a sanction is served upon the respondent rawyer.
2s tlhile the Board's initial decision was filed by order dated
25 February 29, 1984, Ms. Hansen moved to strike part of that
ern order and an order modifying that February 29, 1gg4r order was
BAR COUNSEL'S RESPONSFAIIQN61oN Srare Ban AssocrArroN
RESPONDENT 'S EXCEPTIONS TO 505 Madison Street
STATEMENT OF COSTS AND ESERBHEEWasiuNcroN 98104
Pase 1 of 3 (2CI6) 622:6026
o a
signed on May 2, 1984. on that date there was a decision
I inposing a sanction upon Ms. Hansen and thus a statement of
,
costs and expenses had to be filed within ten days of May 2,
3
1984. fhis time limit was met since the staternent was filed on
4
May 3, 1984.
) 2. The CqPts aqd Expenses Fi.Iejl 4gainsr Ms, Hansen Are
6
Reasonable.
t
Bar counser did file an appeal from the hearing panel
I officer's decision based upon the argument that Ms. Hansen's
I violation of the Code of Professional Responsibil-ity required a
10
more severe sanction than the two Letters of Censure recomrnend-
tl ed by the hearing panel officer. The Disciprinary Board did
L2
not agree.
l3
Since bar counsel's appeal, while permitted by the ru1es,
L4
was not successful, the statement of costs and Expenses in-
15
cluded only the cost of a court reporter, not the cost of the
r6
transcript. Additionally, the attorney fee requested was the
17
minimum amount for a matter which becomes final without Board
1B
review. RtD 5.7(c) states that these amounts "shall conclu-
19
sivel.y be presumed reasonable."
20
fhe Chairman has authority to assess costs and expenses.
2t
The costs and expenses requested are fair and reasonable and in
,,
23

yl
25

26
rr4
AI

BAR COUNSEL'S RESPONWASS..lcroN Srare Ban AssocrArroN


RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO 505 Madison Street
STATEI\4ENT OF COSTS AND ffi3Et{EFWasHrNcroN 98104
Pase 2 of 3 (206) 622-6026
.-\
o o
view of the fact that Ms. Hansen did violate the Code of pro-
I fessional Responsibil ity, should be assessed against her.
q
DArED this {ZW day of , 1984.
3

)
a
6 State Bar
I

I
CHI?TIFiCATI OF' Sfi trljli.r*
I IAILED A COP'/

l0
1l
12

I3
14

15

L6

t7
IB

19

20

2L

,C,

23

24

25

26

itJ
ata

t
fifi Hffi fi I ;
Srare Ban AssoclArlo
i*3, ;l3I&Sfl,6"'oN
505 Madison Street
N

"#
STATEMENT OT COSTS A}ID SRffiEFffasHINcroN 98104
Page 3 of 3 (206\ 622-6026
3AL DCPARTTIEIIT ?w/y(
/RECT LINE
(206) 622-6026

Yl/esHrxcroN SmrE Ben AssocrATroN


5O5 MADISON ST., SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98I 04
ROBERT T. FARRELL
GENERAL COUNSEL STAFF ATTORNEYS
ROBERT D. WELDEN
LELA}ID q RPLEY
SENIOR STAFF AT?OFNS/
July 3, 1984 BHEA J. ROLFE
ttIABK W. IIiUENS?ER
DEBORAI{ OOWO

Ms, Emily R. Ilansen


Attorney at Law
Foreign Service Institute
1400 Key Blvd.
Arlington, VA. ZZ2O7
Rel Request for Review
Dear l!s. Hansen:
The Disciplinary Board wirr meet on septernber L2, 19g4.
Your request will be on their agenda.
Yours truly,

Leland G. Riplelr
Senior Staff Attorney
LGR:cms
.AGAL DEPARTTIENT

DIRECT LINE
b
(206) 6AS026

WlsulxcroN 6rere Ban AssocrAfloN


5O5 MADISON ST., SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98t 04
ROBEHT T. FARRELL STAFF ATTORNEYS
GENERAL couNsEL ROBERT D. WELDEN
, June
.?
kEh*'.?;#"ifiL-." SI k,A 22 , 1984 BI{EA J. ROLFE
UAflK W. HUEi'ISTER
DEBOHAH DOWD

Ms. Emily R. Hansen I 1 '/ 7 7u


Foreign Service Institute t

1400 Key Boulevard


Arlington, Virginia 22209
Re: Costs
Dear Ms. Hansen:
Enclosed is a copy of the Order Assessing Costs and Ex-
penses against you.
RLD 5.7(h) provides for the payment of costs within thirty
days after the assessment becomes fina1. That rule also pro-
vides, when written proof of inability to pay is submitted, for
a periodic payment p1an.
PIease Let me know your intentione regarding payment of
these costs.
Yours truly,

Leland G. Ripley
Senior Staff Attorney
LGR: cms
Enclosure