presumptive sanction violation in Washington

7 Washington opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2011 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (0)

Case	Followed	Cited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Hicks green wash · 2009 2 sentences 2011Hicks, 166 Wash.2d at 778 , 214 P.3d 897 ; In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Eugster, 166 Wash.2d 293, 314-16 , 1249 209 P.3d 435 (2009). [7] ¶ 60 The hearing officer applied the following standards to conclude that suspension was the presumptive sanction for Ferguson's violations of RPC 3.4(c), 3.5(b) and 8.4(d), and that reprimand was the presumptive sanction for her violation of RPC 3.3(f): [Standard] 6.1 False Statements, Fraud and Misrepresentation provides: 6.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent either in determining whether statements or documents are fa 2011*Hicks, 166 Wn.2d at 778 ; In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Eugster, 166 Wn.2d 293, 314-16 , 209 P.3d 435 (2009). 7 ¶60 The hearing officer applied the following standards to conclude that suspension was the presumptive sanction for Ferguson’s violations of RPC 3.4(c), 3.5(b), and 8.4(d), and that reprimand was the presumptive sanction for her violation of RPC 3.3(f): [Standard] 6.1 False Statements, Fraud and Misrepresentation provides: 6.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent either in determining whether statements or documents are false or in taking remedial a	4	2010–2011
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Eugster green wash · 2009 2 sentences 2011Hicks, 166 Wash.2d at 778 , 214 P.3d 897 ; In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Eugster, 166 Wash.2d 293, 314-16 , 1249 209 P.3d 435 (2009). [7] ¶ 60 The hearing officer applied the following standards to conclude that suspension was the presumptive sanction for Ferguson's violations of RPC 3.4(c), 3.5(b) and 8.4(d), and that reprimand was the presumptive sanction for her violation of RPC 3.3(f): [Standard] 6.1 False Statements, Fraud and Misrepresentation provides: 6.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent either in determining whether statements or documents are fa 2011*Hicks, 166 Wn.2d at 778 ; In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Eugster, 166 Wn.2d 293, 314-16 , 209 P.3d 435 (2009). 7 ¶60 The hearing officer applied the following standards to conclude that suspension was the presumptive sanction for Ferguson’s violations of RPC 3.4(c), 3.5(b), and 8.4(d), and that reprimand was the presumptive sanction for her violation of RPC 3.3(f): [Standard] 6.1 False Statements, Fraud and Misrepresentation provides: 6.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent either in determining whether statements or documents are false or in taking remedial a	3	2011–2011
In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Eugster green wash · 2009 2 sentences 2011Hicks, 166 Wash.2d at 778 , 214 P.3d 897 ; In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Eugster, 166 Wash.2d 293, 314-16 , 1249 209 P.3d 435 (2009). [7] ¶ 60 The hearing officer applied the following standards to conclude that suspension was the presumptive sanction for Ferguson's violations of RPC 3.4(c), 3.5(b) and 8.4(d), and that reprimand was the presumptive sanction for her violation of RPC 3.3(f): [Standard] 6.1 False Statements, Fraud and Misrepresentation provides: 6.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent either in determining whether statements or documents are fa 2011*Hicks, 166 Wn.2d at 778 ; In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Eugster, 166 Wn.2d 293, 314-16 , 209 P.3d 435 (2009). 7 ¶60 The hearing officer applied the following standards to conclude that suspension was the presumptive sanction for Ferguson’s violations of RPC 3.4(c), 3.5(b), and 8.4(d), and that reprimand was the presumptive sanction for her violation of RPC 3.3(f): [Standard] 6.1 False Statements, Fraud and Misrepresentation provides: 6.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent either in determining whether statements or documents are false or in taking remedial a	3	2011–2011
In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Hicks green wash · 2009 2 sentences 2011Hicks, 166 Wash.2d at 778 , 214 P.3d 897 ; In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Eugster, 166 Wash.2d 293, 314-16 , 1249 209 P.3d 435 (2009). [7] ¶ 60 The hearing officer applied the following standards to conclude that suspension was the presumptive sanction for Ferguson's violations of RPC 3.4(c), 3.5(b) and 8.4(d), and that reprimand was the presumptive sanction for her violation of RPC 3.3(f): [Standard] 6.1 False Statements, Fraud and Misrepresentation provides: 6.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent either in determining whether statements or documents are fa 2011Hicks, 166 Wash.2d at 778 , 214 P.3d 897 ; In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Eugster, 166 Wash.2d 293, 314-16 , 1249 209 P.3d 435 (2009). [7] ¶ 60 The hearing officer applied the following standards to conclude that suspension was the presumptive sanction for Ferguson's violations of RPC 3.4(c), 3.5(b) and 8.4(d), and that reprimand was the presumptive sanction for her violation of RPC 3.3(f): [Standard] 6.1 False Statements, Fraud and Misrepresentation provides: 6.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent either in determining whether statements or documents are fa	2	2011–2011
In Re Disciplinary Proceeding of Deruiz green wash · 2004 2 sentences 2009The Board unanimously adopted these conclusions. ¶ 25 Hicks does not dispute that suspension is the presumptive sanction for a violation of ELC 5.3(e)(1), but rather cites In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cohen, 149 Wash.2d 323 , 67 P.3d 1086 (2003) and In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against DeRuiz, 152 Wash.2d 558 , 99 P.3d 881 (2004) for the proposition that the presumptive term of suspension is six months. 2009The Board unanimously adopted these conclusions. ¶25 Hicks does not dispute that suspension is the presumptive sanction for a violation of ELC 5.3(e)(1), but rather cites In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cohen, 149 Wn.2d 323 , 67 P.3d 1086 (2003) and In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against DeRuiz, 152 Wn.2d 558 , 99 P.3d 881 (2004) for the proposition that the presumptive term of suspension is six months.	2	2009–2009
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cohen green wash · 2003 2 sentences 2009The Board unanimously adopted these conclusions. ¶ 25 Hicks does not dispute that suspension is the presumptive sanction for a violation of ELC 5.3(e)(1), but rather cites In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cohen, 149 Wash.2d 323 , 67 P.3d 1086 (2003) and In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against DeRuiz, 152 Wash.2d 558 , 99 P.3d 881 (2004) for the proposition that the presumptive term of suspension is six months. 2009The Board unanimously adopted these conclusions. ¶25 Hicks does not dispute that suspension is the presumptive sanction for a violation of ELC 5.3(e)(1), but rather cites In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cohen, 149 Wn.2d 323 , 67 P.3d 1086 (2003) and In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against DeRuiz, 152 Wn.2d 558 , 99 P.3d 881 (2004) for the proposition that the presumptive term of suspension is six months.	2	2009–2009
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against DeRuiz green wash · 2004 2 sentences 2009The Board unanimously adopted these conclusions. ¶ 25 Hicks does not dispute that suspension is the presumptive sanction for a violation of ELC 5.3(e)(1), but rather cites In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cohen, 149 Wash.2d 323 , 67 P.3d 1086 (2003) and In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against DeRuiz, 152 Wash.2d 558 , 99 P.3d 881 (2004) for the proposition that the presumptive term of suspension is six months. 2009The Board unanimously adopted these conclusions. ¶25 Hicks does not dispute that suspension is the presumptive sanction for a violation of ELC 5.3(e)(1), but rather cites In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cohen, 149 Wn.2d 323 , 67 P.3d 1086 (2003) and In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against DeRuiz, 152 Wn.2d 558 , 99 P.3d 881 (2004) for the proposition that the presumptive term of suspension is six months.	2	2009–2009
In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cohen green wash · 2003 2 sentences 2009The Board unanimously adopted these conclusions. ¶ 25 Hicks does not dispute that suspension is the presumptive sanction for a violation of ELC 5.3(e)(1), but rather cites In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cohen, 149 Wash.2d 323 , 67 P.3d 1086 (2003) and In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against DeRuiz, 152 Wash.2d 558 , 99 P.3d 881 (2004) for the proposition that the presumptive term of suspension is six months. 2009The Board unanimously adopted these conclusions. ¶25 Hicks does not dispute that suspension is the presumptive sanction for a violation of ELC 5.3(e)(1), but rather cites In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Cohen, 149 Wn.2d 323 , 67 P.3d 1086 (2003) and In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against DeRuiz, 152 Wn.2d 558 , 99 P.3d 881 (2004) for the proposition that the presumptive term of suspension is six months.	2	2009–2009
In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Christopher green wash · 2005 1 sentence 2010Id. [4] Hicks involved ABA Standards stds. 7.1 and 7.2, instead of ABA Standards stds. 4.41 and 4.42, but both make the same distinction between serious injury (leading to disbarment) and nonserious injury (leading to suspension). [5] Conversely, I agree that Shepard's lack of diligence harmed vulnerable victims, some of whom were incompetent to execute the living trusts.	1	2010–2010
In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Schwimmer green wash · 2005 1 sentence 2009"Those two factors are '(1) proportionality of the sanction to the misconduct and (2) the extent of the agreement among the members of the [d]isciplinary [b]oard.'" Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Schwimmer, 153 Wash.2d at 764 , 108 P.3d 761 ). [2] Presumptive Sanction ¶ 24 The hearing officer concluded that pursuant to ABA Standard stds. 4.13 and 5.13 a reprimand was the presumptive sanction for counts 1-3 and the violation of former RPC 8.4(c) as charged in count 6. *903 The hearing officer also concluded that suspension was the presumptive sanction for violation of ELC 5.3(e)(1) as c	1	2009–2009
Matter of Disciplinary Proceeding Against Schwimmer green wash · 2005 1 sentence 2009"Those two factors are '(1) proportionality of the sanction to the misconduct and (2) the extent of the agreement among the members of the [d]isciplinary [b]oard.'" Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Schwimmer, 153 Wash.2d at 764 , 108 P.3d 761 ). [2] Presumptive Sanction ¶ 24 The hearing officer concluded that pursuant to ABA Standard stds. 4.13 and 5.13 a reprimand was the presumptive sanction for counts 1-3 and the violation of former RPC 8.4(c) as charged in count 6. *903 The hearing officer also concluded that suspension was the presumptive sanction for violation of ELC 5.3(e)(1) as c	1	2009–2009
Matter of Disciplinary Proceeding Against Kuvara green wash · 2003 1 sentence 2009"Those two factors are '(1) proportionality of the sanction to the misconduct and (2) the extent of the agreement among the members of the [d]isciplinary [b]oard.'" Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Schwimmer, 153 Wash.2d at 764 , 108 P.3d 761 ). [2] Presumptive Sanction ¶ 24 The hearing officer concluded that pursuant to ABA Standard stds. 4.13 and 5.13 a reprimand was the presumptive sanction for counts 1-3 and the violation of former RPC 8.4(c) as charged in count 6. *903 The hearing officer also concluded that suspension was the presumptive sanction for violation of ELC 5.3(e)(1) as c	1	2009–2009

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.030 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

WA 7 (2009–2011) UT 2 (2004–2021)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check