Seattle Trademark Lawyer

This Eastern District case started with a claim for violation of the Lanham Act. (STL coverage here and here.)

It ended in one of the attorneys being disbarred.

Here’s the Washington Supreme Court’s rundown:

“This attorney discipline case focuses on an ambiguous written fee agreement, the representation provided in the litigation, and the attorney’s conduct during the grievance investigation. Attorney W. Russell Van Camp required a $25,000 initial ‘retainer’ fee to represent a client in an injunction suit, but he did not explain to the client whether it was a nonrefundable flat fee, an hourly fee, or something else. Nor did the fee agreement Van Camp prepared. When the client expressed confusion about the fee, Van Camp asserted it was a flat fee and made no effort to renegotiate in accordance with the client’s understanding that he would be charged an hourly rate. In the suit, despite numerous settlement offers from opposing counsel and his client’s desire to settle, Van Camp resisted settlement, prolonging the case, and neither communicated nor explained the settlement offers to the client. The client was not consulted or advised concerning the claims against him and the options available to him in resolving the case. After the client filed a grievance with the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA), Van Camp submitted differing and exaggerated time reconstructions based on hours he claimed to have worked on the case to justify the amount of the fee, despite having little to no work to show for it.”

The court went on to conclude: “The six ethical violations found by the hearing officer and affirmed by the Disciplinary Board are supported by substantial evidence. Van Camp violated his duty to advise and inform his client, to abide by the client’s objectives, to act with reasonable diligence, and to be honest with his client. He used a fee agreement he knew to be ambiguous, failed to explain the basis for his fees, and charged an unreasonable fee. He did this knowingly and intentionally for his own benefit. Numerous aggravating factors, including similar prior discipline and bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary process, support the sanction of disbarment.”

Wowza.

The case cite is In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Van Camp, __ Wn.2d. __, 2011 WL 2409654, No. 200,811-9 (June 16, 2011) (en banc).