Facts: Russell Van Camp was disbarred following a hearing before the Washington State Bar Association’s disciplinary board, which found that Van Camp had violated several rules of professional conduct in his representation of Randy Honkala in a case involving Wendle Motors’ effort to obtain injunctive relief against Honkala after Honkala posted derogatory statements regarding Wendle Motors on the internet. The disciplinary board found that Van Camp had not abided by his client’s objective to settle the case as quickly as possible, that he failed to pursue settlement proposals by Wendle Motors’ attorneys, that he failed to timely provide Honkala with copies of settlement proposals even after repeated requests, that he failed to explain to Honkala how his fee would be calculated, that his fee of $25,000 was excessive, and that he misrepresented Wendle Motors’ proposed preliminary injunction to Honkala, that Honkala, the legal system, and the profession suffered serious injury as a result, and that the aggravating factors of prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct, and substantial experience in the practice of law outweigh the mitigating factor of Van Camp’s reputation as a successful personal injury attorney.  Van Camp appealed the disciplinary board’s decision to the Supreme Court of Washington, asserting that procedural errors denied him a fair hearing, that the disciplinary board’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence, and that disbarment is an inappropriate sanction.

Questions: Did procedural errors deny Van Camp a fair hearing?

Were the disciplinary board’s findings supported by substantial evidence?

Is disbarment an appropriate sanction?

 

Conclusion: Justice Charles W. Johnson’s opinion for a unanimous Court affirmed the disciplinary board’s decision and disbarred Van Camp, concluding that admitting the testimony of an expert witness called by the Washington State Bar Association to rebut the testimony of Van Camp’s expert witness with regard to the reasonableness of the fee was not error, that substantial evidence supported the disciplinary board’s findings that Van Camp violated the rules of professional conduct, that these violations caused serious injury to Van Camp’s client, the legal system, and the profession, and that aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, and that disbarment is therefore an appropriate and proportional sanction.

[Original Docket Number: 200,799-6]

Docket No. 200,811-9 (from WSBA Case No. 5385)

Petitioner: Russell Van Camp

(Counsel: Dustin Douglass Deissner)

Respondent: Washington State Bar Association

(Counsel: Joanne S. Abelson)

Argument: Thursday, May 13, 2010 1:00pm

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

Reargument: Tuesday, March 8, 2011 9:00am

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

Decided: Thursday, June 16th, 2011

Prevailing Party: Washington State Bar Association (Respondent)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen2 Court (2011-)