In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceeding Against Van Camp, 257 P.3d 599

Van Camp required a $25,000 initial retainer for an injunction case but did not clarify whether it was nonrefundable, flat, or hourly, and the fee agreement was ambiguous.
Honkala was not provided a copy of the fee agreement; Van Camp told him the retainer was a flat fee and did not renegotiate despite Honkala’s understanding of hourly billing.
In litigation, Van Camp prolonged the case despite settlement offers and did not adequately explain or communicate settlement options or offers to Honkala.
Van Camp produced time reconstructions showing a large fee after the grievance, including exaggerated hours, with little supporting work claimed, and admitted sending varying reconstructions.
WSBA charged multiple counts; the hearing officer found six counts proven and recommended discipline; the Disciplinary Board ultimately disbarred Van Camp and increased restitution concerns.
The Washington Supreme Court affirmed disbarment, holding the six ethical violations supported by substantial evidence and aggravated by prior discipline and other factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did procedural errors deny a fair hearing?	WSBA contends rebuttal expert was permissible as closing evidence after defendant opened door.	Van Camp argues the late rebuttal and mediation discussion limits violated rights to cross-examine and timely evidence.	No reversible error; ruling to allow rebuttal evidence was within discretion.
Is there substantial evidence of misconduct?	WSBA asserts six counts supported by failure to follow client objectives, communication, and charging an unreasonable fee.	Van Camp contends some fault lies with client confusion and defense strategies.	Yes; substantial evidence supports six counts of misconduct.
Is disbarment an appropriate sanction?	Board recommends disbarment based on numerous aggravators and serious injury to client, profession, and system.	Van Camp argues for lesser sanctions like suspension and questions proportionality.	Disbarment appropriate; Board’s sanction upheld.

In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Marshall, 160 Wash.2d 317 (2007) (approach to reviewing findings of misconduct and sanctions)
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Preszler, 169 Wash.2d 1 (2010) (de novo review of legal Conclusions; standard for sanctions)
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cramer, 165 Wash.2d 323 (2008) (eight month suspension for misconduct; weight in sanction analysis)
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against VanDerbeek, 153 Wash.2d 64 (2004) (consideration of prior discipline in aggravation)
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Yates, 110 Wash.2d 444 (1988) (early precedent on aggravating factors and discipline)
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against DeRuiz, 152 Wash.2d 558 (2004) (retainers and fee disclosure guidance; prior discipline context)