In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Placide
190 Wash. 2d 402
Wash.2018Background
- Carllene M. Placide, admitted 1999, worked as a partner at Dorsey & Whitney (from 2006) and later as a shareholder at Ogletree; she accepted and handled outside ("off‑the‑books") immigration clients while employed by those firms and collected fees directly.
- Firm policies at Dorsey (and expectations at Ogletree) required that all compensation to attorneys for professional services be turned over to the firm; Placide signed Dorsey’s offer letter and had access to the partner manuals.
- Placide failed to disclose outside clients, did not deposit advance flat fees in a trust account or include required flat‑fee disclosures, deposited fees into her personal account, and on multiple occasions concealed or lied about the extent of her outside practice.
- Dorsey discovered the outside practice (over $56,700 in fees), terminated Placide, and entered a separation agreement requiring repayment; Ogletree later learned of similar conduct and obtained a settlement.
- The Office of Disciplinary Counsel charged eight counts including theft/misappropriation, dishonesty/deceit, trust account violations, failure to return client property, and unreasonable fee; the hearing officer found multiple violations, the Disciplinary Board unanimously recommended disbarment, and the Supreme Court affirmed disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Placide's Argument | WSBA/ODC's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Placide’s conduct is an intrapartnership accounting dispute outside disciplinary reach | Placide: this was an internal partner/shareholder accounting issue like Rice; not subject to discipline | ODC: misconduct violated RPCs; courts routinely discipline attorneys who misappropriate firm/client funds | Held: Not an intrapartnership dispute; misappropriation and dishonesty are disciplinable (Rice distinguished; Selden cited) |
| Whether she knew of firm policies re: outside clients and turning over fees | Placide: she lacked actual knowledge or reasonably believed separation agreement resolved fee issues | ODC: she had manuals, signed offer, and took steps to conceal clients; knowledge can be inferred | Held: Substantial evidence supports that she knew of Dorsey and Ogletree policies and intentionally concealed clients and fees |
| Whether retention of fees (including $2,050 from client P.S.) constituted theft under RCW chapter 9A.56 | Placide: no intent to deprive; separation agreement and client statements rebut theft; fee not "property of another" until delivered | ODC: statutory definitions cover possession/appropriation by attorneys/partners; retention while concealing meets theft | Held: Retention of off‑books fees meets statutory theft definitions (RCW 9A.56.010(23)); hearing officer’s omission on intent for one fee was corrected by court finding intentional misappropriation generally; theft ruled established |
| Appropriateness/proportionality of disbarment for dishonesty/deceit and theft | Placide: her lies occurred in private meetings and are less egregious than cases where disbarment was set aside (Christopher) | ODC: pattern of repeated dishonesty, multiple offenses, failure to make restitution, and client/firm harm support disbarment | Held: Disbarment is appropriate; ABA Standards and aggravating/mitigating balance support disbarment (unanimous Board) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Rice, 99 Wn.2d 275 (Wash. 1983) (refusal to treat pure intrapartnership accounting as disciplinable where no intent to permanently deprive firm)
- Selden v. Washington State Bar Ass'n (In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Selden), 107 Wn.2d 246 (Wash. 1986) (discipline and disbarment where attorney misappropriated firm funds and lied)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Kuvara, 149 Wn.2d 237 (Wash. 2003) (explains use of ABA Standards for sanctions and role of unanimity/proportionality)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Christopher, 153 Wn.2d 669 (Wash. 2005) (discusses when departure from presumptive disbarment is warranted based on mitigating factors)