In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Jones
338 P.3d 842
Wash.2014Background
- Jones, a Washington-licensed lawyer since 1980, faced WSBA charges arising from his mother Marcella Jones's estate; he was the PR and controlled estate assets from Spokane home.
- Appraisals valued the house at about $155,000 (Meenach/Ciszech), while Jones valued the piano at $5,000; he did not produce these appraisals in proceedings.
- Jones deeded the house to himself at $125,866.27 without recording the deed and later distributed the piano to Jeffrey, all while withholding documents and information from cobeneficiaries Peter and Jeffrey.
- Multiple judicial actions followed: removal as PR in 2001, a series of appeals and motions (2001–2012) challenging valuations and accounting, often denied with sanctions against Jones.
- Jones repeatedly filed motions and appeals deemed frivolous; sanctions accrued to over $138,881, with outstanding sanctions as of the disciplinary hearing.
- Judge Baker removed Jones as PR in 2001, found the house worth $159,000 and the piano worth $5,000, findings later reinforced on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there substantial evidence for the frivolous motions and discovery violations? | Jones committed frivolous filings and discovery abuses. | Jones contends insufficient basis to deem filings frivolous or discovery misconduct. | Yes; substantial evidence supports frivolous filings and discovery violations. |
| Is disbarment the appropriate sanction for Jones's misconduct? | Disbarment is the presumptive sanction under ABA Standards given intentional misconduct. | Jones may contend lesser sanctions could suffice or that misconduct does not warrant disbarment. | Disbarment is the presumptive sanction. |
| Did Jones knowingly misrepresent asset values to cobeneficiaries and the court? | Yes; Jones knowingly inflated piano value and undervalued the house to retaliate. | Jones argues changes were not fraudulent or intended to defraud. | Yes; findings support intentional misrepresentation. |
| Were aggravating/mitigating factors properly applied to justify disbarment? | Aggravating factors (dishonest motive, pattern, multiple offenses, bad faith obstruction, etc.) support disbarment; minimal mitigation. | Jones challenges the weight or existence of certain aggravators. | Yes; aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factor, supporting disbarment. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Sanai, 177 Wn.2d 743 (2013) (Sanai supports using court decisions plus record evidence to prove frivolous filings.)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cohen, 149 Wn.2d 323 (2003) (Credibility and inference in evaluating state of mind and misconduct.)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Conteh, 175 Wn.2d 134 (2012) (Statement on weight of hearing officer’s credibility determinations.)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Starczewski, 177 Wn.2d 771 (2013) (Circumstantial evidence can support findings of motive and state of mind.)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Jackson, 180 Wn.2d 201 (2014) (Affirmation of aggravating factors and disciplinary approach post-sanctions.)