In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Conteh
187 Wash. 2d 793
| Wash. | 2017Background
- ODC filed a formal complaint (Dec 2013) charging attorney Bakary Fansu Conteh with multiple Rule of Professional Conduct violations arising from two client matters: an immigration appeal not filed timely (risking deportation) and an auto‑accident claim that became time‑barred.
- Conteh represented himself at a two‑day disciplinary hearing in Jan 2015. The hearing officer found multiple violations (RPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5), applied aggravating factors, found no mitigation, and recommended a two‑year suspension plus $11,324.41 restitution.
- ODC moved to amend the FFCLR; the hearing officer granted the motion; Conteh did not appeal the FFCLR to the WSBA Disciplinary Board within the 30‑day window.
- Under ELC 11.3(a), the FFCLR was circulated to the Board for possible sua sponte review; the Board unanimously declined sua sponte review on July 10, 2015 and adopted the hearing officer’s decision.
- Conteh later sought review in this court; the court limited review to whether the Board erred in declining sua sponte review and confined the record to the FFCLR that the Board had when it acted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board erred by declining sua sponte review under ELC 11.3(d) | Conteh argued the full record should be produced so he could show sua sponte review was justified; implied extraordinary circumstances existed | ODC and Board argued no timely appeal was filed, the Board followed ELC 11.3(a), and Conteh identified no extraordinary circumstances, clear error, or substantial injustice | Court held Board did not abuse discretion; declining sua sponte review was proper and Board lawfully adopted FFCLR |
| Proper scope of appellate review and record | Conteh relied on McMullen to argue for review of the entire record and broader review authority | Court and ODC noted rule changes that made review appeal‑driven; here scope limited to record before Board when it declined sua sponte review (FFCLR) | Court limited review to FFCLR and the question whether sua sponte review was required; Conteh failed to challenge findings, so findings stood as verities |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Vanderveen, 166 Wn.2d 594 (2009) (court gives great weight to hearing officer’s findings and will not disturb fact findings supported by substantial evidence)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Marshall, 167 Wn.2d 51 (2009) (unchallenged findings of fact treated as verities on appeal)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against McMullen, 127 Wn.2d 150 (1995) (court retains ultimate responsibility for lawyer discipline but generally adopts board’s recommended sanction absent specific reason to depart)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Conteh, 175 Wn.2d 134 (2012) (deference to hearing officer credibility findings in disciplinary review)
- In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Pfefer, 182 Wn.2d 716 (2015) (affirming suspension and restitution where attorney’s negligence caused client’s claim to be time barred)