Facts: Disciplinary proceedings were brought against petitioner attorney S. Richard Hicks after the Washington State Bar Association charged him with violating several rules of professional conduct by mismanaging his client trust account. Hicks and the WSBA stipulated at the outse of the hearings that Hicks did violate RPC 1.14(a) by depositing lawyer funds into his pooled IOLTA (interest on lawyers trust account) trust account, and that Hicks violated RPC 8.4(c) and ELC 5.3(e)(1) for making a false statement in a 2005 letter to the WSBA responding to the allegations involving overdrawing of the client trust account. The hearing officer concluded the WSBA had proved by a clear preponderance of evidence to five of the six charges and recommended Hicks be suspended from the practice of law for 24 months. By a unanimous vote, the Disciplinary Board adopted the hearing officer’s findings, conclusions and recommendations. Hick’s appealed the Board’s recommended sanction to the Supreme Court of Washington, and the WSBA cross-appealed the recommended sanction arguing that Hicks should be disbarred.

Question(s): Did the hearing officer correctly conclude that the WSBA proved Hicks previously made a false statement in his 2005 letter responding to the allegations by a clear preponderance of evidence?

Is the sanction recommended by the hearing officer and Board disproportionate?

Conclusion: Chief Justice Alexander’s opinion for a unanimous Court held that since Hicks did not challenge the hearing officer’s findings of fact to support his conclusion the WSBA proved by a preponderance of evidence he violated RPC 8.4(c) and ELC 5.3(e)(1), the recommended sanction was not disproportionate. In addition, by Hicks’ own admission, his response letter “fudged things” because it provided information that was different from the facts, thus showing clearly that he did not make a full and complete response to the inquiry of overdrawing from his client trust account. Since Hicks and the WSBA failed to persuade the Court that the recommended sanction was disproportionate, there was no clear reason to depart from the Board’s recommended sanction. Hicks was therefore suspended from the practice of law for 24 months.

Docket No. 200,606-0 (from WSBA Case No. 6612)

Petitioner: Richard Hicks

Respondent: Washington State Bar Association

(Counsel: Scott G. Busby)

Briefs:

Argument: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 10:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, August 27th, 2009

Vote: 9-0

Opinion: 166 Wn.2d 774 (2009)

Court: Alexander4 Court (2008-2009)

Alexander
(Majority)

Johnson

Madsen

Sanders

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens