Lexplug logoLexplug

In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Eugster

Washington Supreme Court
209 P.3d 435 (2009)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

An attorney violates professional conduct rules by filing a baseless guardianship petition against a former client immediately following discharge; however, disbarment is disproportionate where the attorney has no prior disciplinary history and the misconduct involves a single client matter not rising to the level of criminality or misappropriation.


Facts:

  • Marion Stead, an 87-year-old widow, hired attorney Stephen Eugster to remove her son, Roger, from control over her financial affairs and to recover personal property.
  • Eugster drafted a new trust and will for Stead, naming himself as the successor trustee and giving himself power of attorney.
  • Approximately three months later, Stead became dissatisfied with Eugster and hired a new attorney, Andrew Braff, explicitly firing Eugster and revoking his power of attorney.
  • Immediately upon learning of his termination, Eugster refused to release Stead's files or recognize the discharge.
  • Eugster filed a petition in superior court to appoint a guardian for Stead, alleging she was delusional and incompetent, despite having drafted her will and trust just months prior.
  • Eugster named Roger—the very person Stead hired Eugster to remove from control—as the proposed guardian.
  • Eugster conducted no medical investigation and did not consult Stead's doctors before filing the petition alleging her incompetence.
  • Stead was forced to spend $13,500 to defend against the guardianship petition, which was eventually dismissed.

Procedural Posture:

  • Stead filed a grievance against Eugster with the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA).
  • The WSBA filed a complaint charging Eugster with nine counts of misconduct.
  • A hearing officer found Eugster violated eight ethical rules and recommended disbarment.
  • The Disciplinary Board of the Washington State Bar Association unanimously adopted the recommendation for disbarment.
  • Eugster appealed the Board's decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an attorney warrant disbarment for filing a guardianship petition alleging incompetence against a former client without reasonable investigation immediately after being terminated, or is a suspension the appropriate sanction under the ABA Standards?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Chambers

No, disbarment is not the appropriate sanction, although the attorney did violate ethical rules warranting a significant suspension. The Court acknowledged that Eugster violated multiple duties, including failing to abide by client objectives, disclosing confidences, and acting with a conflict of interest by filing a baseless guardianship petition. However, the Court determined that disbarment is historically reserved for more grievous conduct such as felonies, fraud, misappropriation of funds, or extreme lack of diligence. The Court applied the ABA Standards, noting that while Eugster acted knowingly and caused harm, he had practiced for 34 years with no prior disciplinary history. The Court found that Eugster's conduct, while serious and involving a substitution of his judgment for the client's, was isolated to a single client and legal proceeding. Therefore, the Court reduced the sanction from disbarment to an 18-month suspension.


Dissenting - Justice Fairhurst

Yes, disbarment is the only appropriate sanction for such egregious betrayal of a client. The dissent argued that Eugster's actions were motivated by a dishonest and selfish desire to maintain financial control over the client's estate. By filing a guardianship petition known to lack a factual basis, he intended to benefit himself at the expense of a vulnerable victim. The dissent contended that the majority manipulated the ABA Standards analysis to reach a lighter sentence and that the four aggravating factors (multiple offenses, vulnerable victim, refusal to acknowledge wrong, substantial experience) clearly outweighed the single mitigating factor of no prior discipline.



Analysis:

This case highlights the tension between an attorney's authority to take protective action for a client with diminished capacity (under RPC 1.14) and the duty of loyalty and confidentiality. The Court clarifies that while protective action is permissible, it must be based on reasonable investigation and genuine concern, not retaliation for being discharged. The decision also establishes a precedent for proportionality in sanctions, indicating that even knowing misconduct involving a conflict of interest and client harm may not warrant disbarment if it is a first offense involving a single client matter and lacks criminal elements.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: In Re Disciplinary Proceeding Eugster (2009)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"