Posted in Disbarred Attorneys, Grant County, Reprimand

Mark Stansfield

Mark Stansfield
License Number: 11356
License Type: Lawyer
Eligible To Practice: No
License Status: Disbarred
WSBA Admit Date: 11/3/1980
Contact Information
Public/Mailing Address: 212 G St SE
Quincy, WA 98848-1556
Phone: (509) 787-1795
Fax: (509) 787-2849
Practice Information Identified by Legal Professional
Firm or Employer:
Office Type and Size: Law firm with 2-5 WSBA members
Practice Areas: Criminal, Estate Planning/ Probate/ Wills, Personal Injury, Workers’ Compensation
Languages Other Than English: None Specified
Professional Liability Insurance
Private Practice: Yes
Has Insurance? No – Click for more info
Last Updated: 2/25/2009 6:07:09 AM
Committees
Member of these committees/boards/panels:
None
Disciplinary History
Action Effective Date
Reprimand 07/17/2008
Disbarment 07/30/2013

In some cases, discipline search results will not reveal all disciplinary action relating to a Washington licensed legal professional, and may not display links to the official decision documents.

Discipline Notice – Mark Stansfield
License Number: 11356
Member Name: Mark Stansfield
Discipline Detail
Action: Reprimand
Effective Date: 7/17/2008
RPC: 1.2 – Scope of Representation
1.9 – (prior to 9/1/2006) Conflict of Interest; Former Client
Discipline Notice:
Description: Mark Stansfield (WSBA No. 11356, admitted 1980), of Quincy, was ordered to receive two reprimands on July 17, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following an appeal. This discipline was based on conduct involving purporting to represent a person’s estate without authorization and conflicts of interest. For more information, see In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Stansfield, 164 Wn.2d 108, 187 P.3d 254 (2008).

In May 2003, a two-car accident in Quincy resulted in the death of three people. The police report stated that there was probable cause to believe that the collision was due to the driver of one of the vehicles (Mr. V) operating his Lexus “while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug.” Mr. V was uninsured. In May 2003, the widow of the driver of the other vehicle (Mrs. U) and her daughter hired Mr. Stansfield to file an insurance claim on her husband’s behalf and to probate his estate. Mrs. U also asked Mr. Stansfield about suing Mr. V for wrongful death of her husband, which Mr. Stansfield counseled her against because Mr. V lacked assets.

Around the same time, Mrs. U informed Mr. Stansfield that the widow of the passenger in her husband’s car (Mrs. C) lived in Guatemala and had given her authority to act as personal representative for Mr. C’s estate. Mr. Stansfield had Mrs. U sign a retainer agreement and other documents as personal representative of Mr. C’s estate. He then notified Mr. U’s insurance company that he represented the estates of both Mr. U and Mr. C and requested that they communicate directly with him. Mr. Stansfield wrote two letters to Mrs. C, translated into Spanish, asking whether she wanted him to handle her husband’s estate. He received no response. In fact, Mrs. C had authorized a relative who lived in Washington to hire another lawyer (Lawyer B) to represent their family. When Lawyer B contacted the insurance company, he was told that Mr. Stansfield claimed to represent Mr. C’s family. He wrote to Mr. Stansfield and requested that he cease his representation. Mr. Stansfield promptly filed an attorney’s lien for $2,299.32 against Mr. C’s estate, which delayed the family’s receipt of the insurance funds. Mr. Stansfield sent a formal notice of vacation of his lien in November 2005.

In September 2003, approximately two weeks after Mr. Stansfield concluded matters regarding the insurance claim and estate probate for Mrs. U, Mr. Stansfield agreed to represent Mr. V, who was charged with three counts of vehicular homicide and two counts of vehicular assault from the motor vehicle collision. Although the two representations were substantially related and the two clients had materially adverse interests, Mr. Stansfield neither informed Mrs. U of his representation of Mr. V nor obtained her consent thereto. On September 22, 2003, before the arraignment, Mr. Stansfield had Mr. V sign a fee agreement and received a $10,000 nonrefundable flat fee. Mr. Stansfield represented Mr. V at his arraignment, where Mr. V pleaded not guilty. On the same day, Mr. Stansfield filed a notice of appearance, a notice of demand for discovery, a demand for preservation of evidence, a demand for jury trial, and a demand for a bill of particulars on behalf of Mr. V. Mrs. U attended the arraignment and was shocked and extremely upset to see Mr. Stansfield representing Mr. V. After the arraignment, Mrs. U expressed her concerns to the prosecutor. Mr. Stansfield decided to withdraw from the case and transferred all but $250 of the $10,000 to substitute counsel.

Mr. Stansfield’s conduct violated former RPC 1.2(f), prohibiting a lawyer from willfully purporting to act as a lawyer for any person without the authority of that person; and former RPC 1.9(a), prohibiting a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter from representing another client in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation and a full disclosure of the material facts.

Natalea Skvir represented the Bar Association. Leland G. Ripley represented Mr. Stansfield. Paul M. Larson was the hearing officer.

In some cases, discipline search results will not reveal all disciplinary action relating to a Washington licensed legal professional, and may not display links to the official decision documents.

Discipline Notice – Mark Stansfield
License Number: 11356
Member Name: Mark Stansfield
Discipline Detail
Action: Disbarment
Effective Date: 7/30/2013
RPC: 8.4 – Misconduct
Discipline Notice: Order Approving
Stipulation
Supreme Court Order
Description: Mark Stansfield (WSBA No. 11356, admitted 1980), of Quincy, was disbarred, effective 7/30/2013, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court. The lawyer’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 8.4 (Misconduct). Natalea Skvir represented the Bar Association. Mark Stansfield represented himself. William John Murphy was the hearing officer. The online version of NWLawyer contains links to the following documents: Stipulation to Disbarment; Disciplinary Board Order Approving Stipulation; and Washington State Supreme Court Order.

In some cases, discipline search results will not reveal all disciplinary action relating to a Washington licensed legal professional, and may not display links to the official decision documents.

Stansfield0392

Stansfield0411 (1)

Stansfield0411 (2)

Advertisements

Author:

I am an animals rescuer, a mother, a grandmother, a minister, & a human being who is tired of all the corruption going on in our state.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s