In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Simmerly, 174 Wash. 2d 963

WSBA charged Simmerly with 36 counts of attorney misconduct arising from mishandling client funds, including a key count for false representations and fabrications during the disciplinary process.
The Board affirmed the hearing officer’s findings but reinstated several counts and recommended disbarment for the intentional misrepresentations during investigation.
The hearing officer found 26 counts established and recommended suspension; the Board shifted some counts to be violations of trust-account rules and urged disbarment based on count 36.
Individual client matters involved: Jaquez, Dahl, Johnson, Rushton, Buerman & Evans, Lea, Larsen, Glaub, with issues on advance fee deposits, commingling, improper withdrawals, and delayed or fabricated ledger support.
The court ultimately affirmed disbarment, upholding the findings as supported by substantial evidence and accepting the Board’s injury-based rationale for disbarment under ABA Standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the challenged findings have substantial evidence	Simmerly argues insufficient evidence to support key findings	Board/WSBA contends findings are supported by substantial evidence	Yes; findings supported by substantial evidence
Whether disbarment is the proper sanction for count 36	Disbarment not warranted given mitigating factors	Disbarment warranted due to serious injury to the system	Disbarment affirmed
Whether injury to the public system was proven for sanction purposes	Injury not proven or not serious	Injury proven; seriousness established	Yes; injury to the public/legal system deemed serious
Whether reinstated counts (12,13,18,22,33) were proved independently	Counts rest on hearing officer findings	Board’s reliance on hearing officer findings appropriate	Yes; counts reinstated and supported by record

In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Whitt, 149 Wn.2d 707 (Wash. 2003) (misrepresentations in disciplinary proceedings may harm public and system)
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Hicks, 166 Wn.2d 774 (Wash. 2009) (disbarment appropriate where misrepresentations show serious injury or risk)
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Dornay, 160 Wn.2d 671 (Wash. 2007) (mitigating factors may reduce sanctions, but not always prevent disbarment)
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Christopher, 153 Wn.2d 669 (Wash. 2005) (mitigating factors can influence sanction if present)
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Guarnero, 152 Wn.2d 51 (Wash. 2004) (circumstantial evidence evaluation; credibility determinations remain with trier of fact)
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Poole, 164 Wn.2d 710 (Wash. 2008) (circumstantial evidence standard and deference to credibility findings)
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Marshall, 160 Wn.2d 317 (Wash. 2007) (unchallenged findings treated as verities; substantial evidence standard)
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Van Camp, 171 Wn.2d 781 (Wash. 2011) (court defers to disciplinary board on sanctions unless departure warranted)