A reader wrote BlatherWatch alerting us by saying: "Well, at least Mike Webb hired an attorney who has personal experience with fraudulent documentation."
He or she sent us this link to a Bar Association Discipline Notice for Webb's attorney, Bradley Marshall. Seems he was disciplined for violating rules of professional conduct (RPC's) in 1997. There are many complaints filed against lawyers by consumers, but if they get as far as a Bar Association hearing and a reprimand, it's a serious stain on an attorney's record.
We'll let you read it for yourself.
Effective Date: 3/27/1997
3.3 - Candor Toward the Tribunal
4.1 - Truthfulness in Statements to Others
5.3 - Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants
8.4 (a) - Violate the RPCs
8.4 (c) - Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation
8.4 (d) - Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice
Bradley R. Marshall (WSBA No. 15830, admitted 1986), of Seattle, has been reprimanded pursuant to the Disciplinary Board’s March 27, 1997 order, entered after a disciplinary hearing. The discipline is based upon Marshall’s handling of a case in which he instructed a member of his office staff to sign two declarations without the declarants’ permission and to emulate the declarants’ signatures. Without making any notation that the declarants had not signed these declarations, Marshall filed these declarations with the court. These actions violated RPC 3.3 (a)(1) and (a)(4), RPC 4.1 (a), RPC 5.3, and RPC 8.4 (a), (c), and (d).
Marshall’s client’s case had been dismissed on a summary judgment motion in part because declarations submitted by the client and another witness were not in the proper form. Marshall had his staff prepare amended declarations for his client and the witness, so the declarations would meet the requirements of Civil Rule 56, but did not change the substance of two declarations previously signed by the declarants. He later instructed his staff to sign the two declarations and to emulate the signatures of his client and the witness. He knowingly filed the declarations with the false signatures in support of a motion for reconsideration of an order. There were no notations on the declarations to indicate that the declarants had not signed them, and Marshall did not inform opposing counsel or the judge that the declarants had not signed the declarations. Although Marshall directed his staff to improperly sign declarations, he would not accept personal responsibility for the improper signatures or submitting false information to the court.
The Hearing Officer was C. Bradford Cattle of Everett. Kurt Bulmer of Seattle represented the Respondent. Disciplinary Counsel Anne Seidel and Jean Kelley McElroy represented the Bar Association.