430 P.3d 262
Wash.2018Background
- Russell J. Jensen Jr., admitted in Washington in 2008 (previously disciplined in Minnesota), engaged in pro se conduct during his divorce that the WSBA charged as multiple RPC violations.
- Jensen repeatedly obstructed sale of the marital Mukilteo home (kept a "for sale by owner" sign, removed listing signage, posted a "Buyer Beware" note, refused to sign closing documents) and offered a prospective buyer a secret $50,000 payoff to permit the sale.
- Jensen made false statements to tribunals about his obstruction and about the value/lossof the Savage (Minnesota) property, concealing that he repurchased it for under $500 and that notices were sent to his address.
- Jensen directly contacted and threatened Therese and James Brown while knowing they were represented, and continued vexatious litigation in Washington and Minnesota; Minnesota courts sanctioned him and ordered him to stop contacting the parties.
- Jensen declined to attend his WSBA disciplinary hearing; the hearing officer found six RPC violations, recommended disbarment (finding multiple aggravators and no mitigating factors), the Disciplinary Board unanimously adopted that recommendation, and the Washington Supreme Court disbarred Jensen and conditioned reinstatement on payment of judgments owed to Therese, Brown, and the trust.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (WSBA) | Defendant's Argument (Jensen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Jensen violated RPCs by disobeying court orders and obstructing the Mukilteo sale | Jensen's actions (sign, removal of agent sign, refusal to sign closings, threats) violated RPC 8.4(d) and (g) | Interlocutory orders are not binding; no obligation to comply | Held: Substantial evidence supports violations; interlocutory-order argument disregarded; violation sustained |
| 2. Whether Jensen filed frivolous/vexatious motions and appeals | Repeated, baseless challenges to sales after agreeing to them violated RPC 3.1 and 8.4(d) | Actions justified by legal theory that courts lack authority to permit unilateral sale by one spouse | Held: Rejected; record shows Jensen agreed to sales then litigated; violations sustained |
| 3. Whether Jensen engaged in dishonesty (secret payoff demand; false statements to courts) | Demanding $50,000 payoff and making knowingly false statements violated RPC 8.4(c) and RPC 3.3(a)(1) | Claimed right to sell property and characterized some statements as opinion | Held: Supported by record; misconduct (dishonesty, false statements) sustained |
| 4. Whether Jensen improperly communicated with represented parties and whether his process/due-process claims justified relief | Direct contacts and threats to represented parties violated RPC 4.2; disciplinary process provided adequate procedure | Claimed extenuating circumstances justified contacts; later raised procedural due process complaints (discovery, hearing officer qualifications, access to bar file) | Held: Jensen admitted RPC 4.2 violation; extenuating-circumstances claim rejected; due-process arguments waived or unsupported; discovery denials within hearing officer discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitney, 155 Wn.2d 451 (2005) (unchallenged hearing findings accepted as verities on appeal)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Marshall, 160 Wn.2d 317 (2007) (standard for reviewing disciplinary findings and sanctions analysis)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Ahele, 184 Wn.2d 1 (2015) (clarifying clear preponderance standard in discipline context)
- Cottingham v. In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cottingham, 191 Wn.2d 450 (2018) (attorney bears burden to show disproportionality and court may disregard undeveloped assignments of error)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Behrman, 165 Wn.2d 414 (2008) (deference to unanimous Board recommendation absent clear reason to depart)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against VanDerbeek, 153 Wn.2d 64 (2004) (considering remote prior misconduct as aggravating)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Christopher, 153 Wn.2d 669 (2005) (misrepresentations to court supporting disbarment)
- State v. Young, 89 Wn.2d 613 (1978) (court may assume absence of authority when party cites none)
- DeHeer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122 (1962) (assignments unsupported by argument need not be considered)