Posted in Disbarred Attorneys, Thurston County

Daniel A Wright

Daniel A. Wright
License Number: 11560
License Type: Lawyer
Eligible To Practice: No
License Status: Disbarred
WSBA Admit Date: 5/11/1981
Contact Information
Public/Mailing Address: 1007 Maplewood Ln SE
Tumwater, WA 98501-4149
Phone: (360) 352-4674
Practice Information Identified by Legal Professional
Firm or Employer:
Office Type and Size: Law firm with 2-5 WSBA members
Practice Areas: Estate Planning/ Probate/ Wills, Family
Languages Other Than English: None Specified
Professional Liability Insurance
Private Practice: Yes
Has Insurance? Yes – Click for more info
Last Updated: 3/7/2008 8:00:00 AM
Committees
Member of these committees/boards/panels:
None
Disciplinary History
Action Effective Date
Disbarment 10/06/2009

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 – Daniel Wright
License Number: 11560
Member Name: Daniel Wright
Discipline Detail
Action: Disbarment
Effective Date: 10/6/2009
RPC: 1.3 – Diligence
1.4 – Communication
8.1 – Bar Admission Matters
8.4 (c) – Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation
8.4 (l) – Violate ELCs
Discipline Notice:
Description: Daniel A. Wright (WSBA No. 11560, admitted 1981), of Tumwater was disbarred, effective October 6, 2009, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court, following a default hearing. This discipline was based on conduct involving failure to act with reasonable diligence, failure to communicate, making false statements in connection with a disciplinary matter, dishonest conduct, and violating a duty imposed under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct.

In September 2005, a client hired Mr. Wright to represent her in the dissolution of her marriage. As part of the dissolution, the client’s husband executed a promissory note in favor of the client, which was secured by a trust deed on a certain piece of real property. The client’s husband executed the note and trust deed on or about February 1, 2007. Mr. Wright did not record the promissory note or trust deed. In June 2007, the client retrieved her client file from the firm where Mr. Wright was an associate. She subsequently learned that the trust deed had not been recorded and that a senior lien holder had foreclosed on the property on May 7, 2007.

On August 14, 2007, the client telephoned Mr. Wright about his failure to record the trust deed. Mr. Wright told his client that she had instructed him not to record the trust deed and that he had sent her a letter at that time confirming those instructions. The client told Mr. Wright that she had not given him instructions not to record the trust deed. She also told Mr. Wright that she had not received any letter from him confirming those instructions and that she intended to file a grievance with the Association. Mr. Wright wrote and sent the client a follow-up letter confirming the telephone conversation, including his assertion that she instructed him not to record the trust deed, and enclosed a copy of a letter dated February 12, 2007. The letter dated February 12, 2007, from Mr. Wright to the client, purported to confirm the client’s instructions to Mr. Wright not to file the trust deed. Mr. Wright represented to her that the letter had been created and mailed to her on February 12, 2007. In fact, Mr. Wright created the letter on August 14, 2007, after the telephone conversation with the client. In connection with the investigation of the grievance filed by the client, Mr. Wright falsely stated to the Association that the letter dated February 12, 2007, had been created and sent to the client on February 12, 2007.

Mr. Wright’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, requiring a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client; RPC 1.4, requiring a lawyer to promptly inform the client of any decision of circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required, reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished, keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; RPC 8.1(a), prohibiting a lawyer, in connection with a disciplinary matter, from knowingly making a false statement of material fact; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer from violating a duty or sanction imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct in connection with a disciplinary matter (here, ELC 5.3(e)).

Debra J. Slater represented the Bar Association. Mr. Wright did not appear either in person or through counsel. Malcolm L. Edwards 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.

Advertisements