Summary
The Washington Supreme Court reviewed attorney disciplinary charges arising from Sandra L. Ferguson’s ex parte appearance in a contested property dispute. The court upheld findings that she failed to provide notice, omitted relevant facts, and obtained relief through misrepresentation, and affirmed the recommended 90-day suspension. The court also upheld the assessment of proceeding costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether substantial evidence supported the hearing officer's and Disciplinary Board's findings that Ferguson knowingly violated ex parte notice requirements, failed to disclose relevant facts, and engaged in deception or misrepresentation.
- Whether Ferguson's ex parte application qualified as a temporary restraining order under CR 65(b) and therefore could proceed without notice.
- Whether the recommended 90-day suspension was an appropriate sanction.
- Whether the disciplinary-board chair abused his discretion by reducing the costs assessed against Ferguson.
Holdings
- Substantial evidence supported the Board's findings that Ferguson knowingly proceeded ex parte without required notice, failed to disclose relevant facts, and made false or misleading statements in obtaining relief.
- Ferguson's application was not a CR 65(b) temporary restraining order and did not qualify for notice-free ex parte relief. The contempt order, writ of restitution, and related relief required notice and a hearing.
- The findings supported conclusions that Ferguson violated former RPC 3.3(f), RPC 3.4(c), RPC 3.5(b), and RPC 8.4(c) and (d).
- The Board's recommended 90-day suspension and reprimand were appropriate sanctions.
- The disciplinary-board chair did not abuse his discretion by reducing the costs assessed against Ferguson.
Key quotations
“We hold that substantial evidence in the record supports the Board’s findings of fact, which in turn support its conclusions of law. We also hold that the Board’s recommended 90 day suspension is an appropriate sanction.” (at 917, 922)
“However, the Chair was also not required to assess any fees against Ferguson.” (at 949-950)
Factual background
Ferguson represented her brother and sister-in-law in a dispute involving a restaurant and a rental house. Without notice to opposing counsel, she appeared ex parte and obtained an order holding the opposing parties in contempt and granting her clients possession of the house through a writ of restitution. She failed to disclose relevant information concerning mortgage payments, the parties' bankruptcy plans, and the identity of a person residing in the house, and made false or misleading statements to the court. The opposing parties filed for bankruptcy shortly after the order, and the parties ultimately settled their property claims.
Procedural history
The hearing officer found Ferguson violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by making an improper ex parte appearance, failing to disclose relevant facts, and obtaining relief through deception or misrepresentation, recommending a 30-day suspension. The Disciplinary Board adopted most findings and conclusions and increased the recommendation to a 90-day suspension. The Board chair assessed reduced costs against Ferguson; the Washington Supreme Court reviewed both the disciplinary sanction and the cost assessment.