THE FOLLOWING INFORMAL ADMONITION WAS ISSUED BY BAR COUNSEL ON May 27, Re: In re William H. Wade, Bar Docket No

Transcription

1 THE FOLLOWING INFORMAL ADMONITION WAS ISSUED BY BAR COUNSEL ON May 27, 2004 William H. Wade, Esquire c/o Abraham C. Blitzer, Esquire 419 Seventh Street, N.W., Suite 401 Washington, D.C Dear Mr. Wade: Re: In re William H. Wade, This office has completed its investigation of the above-referenced matter. Because your conduct reflected a disregard of certain ethical standards under the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct ( the Rules ), we are issuing you this Informal Admonition pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, 3, 6 and 8. You are not a member of the District of Columbia Bar ( D.C. Bar ). Your conduct came to our attention as the result of a complaint we received from Mid-Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. ( MAMSI ), against your sister, Lydia A. Wade, Esquire. MAMSI alleged that upon settlement of a client s personal injury claim in Civil Action No in D.C. Superior Court, Ms. Wade had failed to honor an agreement to reimburse MAMSI for medical bills MAMSI had paid on behalf of the client. Our investigation revealed that you, not Ms. Wade, signed such an agreement with MAMSI. Upon discovering that you had signed the agreement with MAMSI and that you had been admitted to the D.C. Superior Court pro hac vice in order to handle the client s civil action, we docketed this matter for investigation against you. 1 You were retained in January 1995 by the client to represent her in an effort to obtain a monetary recovery for injuries she had sustained in an automobile accident in the District of Columbia. The client had been a passenger in a car that was hit from behind by another vehicle. Some of the client s 1 D.C. Bar Rule XI, 1(a), Persons Subject to Disciplinary Jurisdiction, provides, in pertinent part, that all persons appearing or participating pro hac vice in any proceeding in accordance with Rule 49(c)(1) of the General Rules of this Court... are subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court and its Board on Professional Responsibility.... Thus, we have jurisdiction over your conduct in this matter on account of your pro hac vice admission.

2 Page 2 medical bills had been paid by MAMSI, her medical insurer. MAMSI had a clause in its healthcare policy providing that if an insured was injured through the act of another party and recovered money for medical expenses from the other party, MAMSI was entitled to reimbursement for the value of claims it had paid. On May 10, 1995, you signed an agreement proffered by MAMSI to represent it in its subrogation claim in return for a 25% contingency fee. 2 When you were unable to settle the matter with the insurance company for the driver of the other vehicle, you drafted a civil complaint against the other driver. Because you are not a member of the D.C. Bar, you asked your sister, Lydia A. Wade, Esquire, who is a member, to file the complaint in D.C. Superior Court and to move your admission pro hac vice. Although Ms. Wade s practice consisted primarily of court-appointed, criminal defense cases, as an accommodation to you she filed the complaint and subsequently moved your admission pro hac vice. You continued to provide the principal representation for the client. On April 13, 1998, the client s case against the driver of the other vehicle settled for $20,000. Both you and Ms. Wade attended the pre-trial conference during which the settlement was reached, and you signed the praecipe dated April 13, 1998, indicating that the case had been settled and should be dismissed with prejudice. On or about April 23, 1998, the $20,000 settlement check was issued jointly to you, Ms. Wade, and the client. Ms. Wade obtained the endorsements of yourself and the client on the settlement check, deposited the check into her account on May 19, 1998, deducted the expenses of the litigation, disbursed the attorneys fees to you and herself, and provided the remaining funds to the client. 3 You cashed the check for your share of the attorneys fees on or about June 16, Interpreted literally, the agreement created a conflict of interest between you and your personal injury client. MAMSI states, however, that it considered the document to be an agreement not that you would represent MAMSI, but that MAMSI would reduce the amount of its claim against its insured by 25% in return for being notified of the receipt of settlement proceeds and provided with its share of the funds, and in recognition of the fact that the insured incurred attorneys fees to obtain the recovery. 3 You received $7,350 in attorneys fees for your representation in the matter and Ms. Wade received $650.

3 Page 3 Ms. Wade states that at the time of the disbursements, she was unaware of your agreement with MAMSI, and there was no copy of the agreement in the client file. Accordingly, she was unaware that MAMSI had an interest in the funds that she was required to honor. Furthermore, the client confirms that she told Ms. Wade that she would pay MAMSI directly and asked Ms. Wade to provide all of the remaining settlement funds to her. On April 28, 1999, MAMSI filed a complaint with the Office of Bar Counsel alleging (erroneously) that Ms. Wade had signed a lien agreement with MAMSI, but had failed to honor it. Upon learning in late June 1999 of the filing of the complaint, Ms. Wade immediately sent MAMSI from her own funds a check for $1,562, the entire amount of its claim. 4 D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(b) provides: Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive.... You argue that you did not violate Rule 1.15(b). Through counsel, you note that the insurance company sent the settlement check to Lydia Wade, not to you, and claim that you never saw the check. You argue that [t]he clear language of Rule 1.15 only applies to attorneys who receive funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, and that you did not receive any funds on behalf of the client. You also state that you do not recall having a conversation with Ms. Wade about MAMSI s lien prior to the settlement. Through counsel, you state that [i]n retrospect, [you] would have made it clear to [Ms. Wade] at the time [you] brought her into the case that there was an outstanding lien. Moreover, you state that by the time of the settlement, you were living in Chesapeake, Virginia, having moved there to start a new 4 MAMSI would not agree to accept less than the full amount of its claim because it had not been notified and paid promptly after the settlement. Ms. Wade was reimbursed by the client several months later.

4 Page 4 career with a non-profit organization. You explain that [b]ecause of the distance between [yourself] and [Ms. Wade] and the fact that [you were] embarking on a new career, [you] simply did not focus on the lien. You state that you recall discussing the MAMSI lien with Ms. Wade at some point, but not until after the case had settled. Further, you state that you do not recall when the conversation occurred or what was said. We find that you signed the lien agreement with MAMSI on May 10, Further, we find that you were aware that the case settled on April 13, 1998, as you were present at the settlement conference and signed the praecipe indicating that the case had been settled and should be dismissed with prejudice. Moreover, we find that you were in fact in receipt of the settlement check, which you endorsed before Ms. Wade deposited it on May 19, Thereafter, you received from Ms. Wade a check for your share of the attorneys fees, which you cashed on June 16, As the principal attorney in the matter and the signatory of the agreement with MAMSI, you clearly had an obligation to ensure that the proceeds of the settlement were properly disbursed. You apparently chose to delegate this responsibility to Ms. Wade. In doing so, however, you failed to inform Ms. Wade of your agreement with MAMSI or to take any steps on your own to notify MAMSI that the case had settled and to ensure that MAMSI received its share of the proceeds. Accordingly, we conclude that you violated Rule 1.15(b) by failing to notify MAMSI of the receipt of the proceeds of the settlement and by failing to ensure that MAMSI was promptly paid its share of the funds. In issuing you this Informal Admonition, we have taken into consideration the facts that you have no record of prior discipline and have not been engaged in the active practice of law since This letter constitutes an Informal Admonition pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, 3, 6 and 8, and is public when issued. Please refer to the attachment to this letter of Informal Admonition for a statement of its effect and your right to have it vacated and have a formal hearing before a Hearing Committee. If you would like to have a formal hearing, you must submit a written request for a hearing within 14 days of the date of this letter to the Office of Bar Counsel, with a copy to the Board on Professional Responsibility, unless Bar Counsel grants an extension of time. If a hearing is requested, this Informal Admonition will be vacated and Bar Counsel will institute formal charges pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, 8(b). The case will then be assigned to a Hearing Committee and a hearing will be scheduled by the Executive Attorney for the Board on Professional Responsibility pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, 8(c). Such a hearing could result in a recommendation to dismiss the charges against you or

5 Page 5 a recommendation for a finding of culpability, in which case the sanction recommended by the Hearing Committee is not limited to an Informal Admonition. Sincerely, Joyce E. Peters Bar Counsel cc: Mid-Altlantic Medical Services, Inc. Via First Class & Certified Mail No JEP:JH:dcw