In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Pfefer
182 Wash. 2d 716
| Wash. | 2015Background
- Attorney Matthew F. Pfefer was retained for a 2006 auto-injury claim and filed suit on the eve of the statute of limitations in 2009.
- Pfefer failed to conduct discovery, prepare witnesses, meet court scheduling/mediation deadlines, or timely communicate with client Ana Ortiz.
- Because Pfefer did not file the required joint confirmation of readiness, the case was dismissed; Ortiz appeared at trial unaware the case wasn’t set and Pfefer did not attend.
- Opposing counsel made a $6,580.06 settlement offer after dismissal that Pfefer did not relay to Ortiz.
- Pfefer filed an immediate withdrawal; Ortiz’s case was dismissed again and the statute of limitations then expired.
- WSBA charged Pfefer with three counts; the hearing officer and unanimous Disciplinary Board found violations and recommended (and the court imposed) a six-month suspension, restitution ($5,834.15), and WSBA costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (WSBA) | Defendant's Argument (Pfefer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to diligently prosecute / meet court deadlines (RPC 1.3, 3.2) | Pfefer neglected the case, missed deadlines, caused dismissal and harm | Pfefer offered explanations (confusion about local rules) but did not contest facts | Court upheld violation; substantial evidence supports knowing neglect and missed deadlines |
| Failure to communicate settlement/dismissal to client (RPC 1.2(a), 1.4) | Pfefer failed to inform Ortiz of the settlement offer and dismissals, preventing informed decision | Pfefer claimed the offer was a sham/ineffective and so did not communicate it | Court held communication duty violated; credibility rejected and Rule 1.4 requires informing client of offers and dismissals |
| Improper immediate withdrawal (RPC 1.16(c), 1.16(d); CR 71) | Withdrawal “effective immediately” violated court-rule notice requirements and left client unprotected | Pfefer argued substantial compliance and procedural defenses | Court held withdrawal violated CR 71 and RPCs; immediate withdrawal not substantial compliance and caused client harm |
| Procedural/due-process objections to hearing (expert testimony and counsel-witness rule) | Pfefer argued hearing officer relied on untested “secret” expertise and improperly limited dual role of law partner witness | Pfefer contended expert testimony was required and RPC 3.7 inapplicable to disciplinary hearings | Court rejected due-process claims: hearing officer may apply experience, expert not required; RPC 3.7 applies to tribunals and partner’s dual role was permissibly limited |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Marshall, 160 Wn.2d 317 (standard of review for disciplinary findings)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Burtch, 162 Wn.2d 873 (permitting hearing officer to limit expert testimony)
- In re Disability Proceeding Against Diamondstone, 153 Wn.2d 430 (hearing officer may draw inferences from documentary evidence)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against VanDerbeek, 153 Wn.2d 64 (same)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Sanai, 177 Wn.2d 743 (deference to unanimous Board sanction recommendation)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Starczewski, 177 Wn.2d 771 (attorney duty to inform client about dismissal)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Halverson, 140 Wn.2d 475 (use of ABA Standards in sanctions analysis)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Dann, 136 Wn.2d 67 (two-step ABA Standards sanctions approach)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Behrman, 165 Wn.2d 414 (upholding Board’s unanimous sanction absent clear reason to depart)