THESE NOTICES OF THE IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS AND ACTIONS are published pursuant to Rule 3.5(c) of the Washington Supreme Court Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct. Active links to directory listings, RPC definitions, and documents related to the disciplinary matter can be found at the links below or by looking up the respondent in the Discipline Notice Directory at https://mywsba.org/PersonifyEbusiness/DisciplineNoticeDirectory.
As some WSBA members share the same or similar names, please read all disciplinary notices carefully for names, cities, and bar numbers.
Find prior Discipline & Other Regulatory Notices here.
Disbarred
John O’Neill Green (WSBA No. 33827, admitted 2003) of Liberty Lake, WA, was disbarred, effective 2/22/2024, by order of the Washington Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline in accordance with an order of the Supreme Court of the State of Texas. Henry Cruz acted as disciplinary counsel. John O’Neill Green represented themselves. For more information, see https://www.texas
bar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=/Customsource/Member
Directory/Sanction.cfm&JWID=6435015.
Decision document: The Washington Supreme Court Order.
Kristi Pimpleton (WSBA No. 34419, admitted 2003) of Bothell, WA, was disbarred, effective 2/19/2024, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. Erica Temple acted as disciplinary counsel. Kristi Pimpleton represented themselves. Randolph O. Petgrave, III was the hearing officer.
The lawyer’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5 (Fees), 1.15A (Safeguarding Property), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (Prejudicial to the Admin of Justice), 8.4(j) (Violate a Court Order).
Pimpleton was found to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by: 1) failing to diligently represent a client and/or failing to appear for the client’s hearing; 2) failing to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the case, and failing to respond to the client’s reasonably necessary requests for information, and/or failing to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; 3) failing to refund unearned fees; 4) failing to respond to disciplinary counsel’s requests for a written response to the grievance and for documents, failing to appear at deposition, and/or failing to produce records in response to a subpoena; 5) failing to refund unearned fees; 6) failing to deposit client funds into a trust account; 7) failing to respond to disciplinary counsel’s requests for a response to a grievance; 8) failing to respond timely to discovery requests from opposing counsel, failing to respond to motions to compel and for sanctions, and/or failing to diligently represent a client; 9) failing to respond timely to discovery requests from opposing counsel, failing to respond to motions to compel and for sanctions, failing to appear at hearings on the motions, and/or failing to comply with the court orders; 10) failing to communicate with client about the status of the case, providing client with inaccurate information, and/or failing to respond to client’s reasonable requests for information; 11) collecting and retaining fees for representation when the services were not performed and/or failing to refund unearned fees upon termination of the representation; 12) failing to promptly respond to a client’s grievance; 13) failing to communicate with client regarding the client’s case and/or failing to respond to the client’s requests for information; 14) failing to diligently handle client’s case and/or abandoning the client’s case; 15) charging and collecting an unreasonable fee and/or failing to refund unearned fees; 16) failing to respond promptly to a client’s requests for information, failing to keep client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, failing to explain the matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit client to make informed decision regarding the representation, and/or providing with false and/or misleading information; 17) failing to diligently represent client; 18) continuing to charge client a retainer fee after client already paid the fee by credit card and/or collecting fees for work that was not performed; 19) falsely representing to ODC that lawyer spoke with opposing party’s lawyer regarding client’s case and/or submitting a false billing record to ODC; 20) failing to respond to discovery requests from opposing counsel, failing to respond to a motion to compel discovery, failing to appear for a hearing on the motion, and/or failing to diligently represent a client; 21) failing to pay the sanctions ordered by the court; 22) failing to communicate with client about the status of the case, failing to inform client about opposing counsel’s discovery requests and motion to compel, and/or failing to respond to client’s reasonable requests for information; 23) failing to promptly respond to client’s grievance and/or failing to appear for deposition; 24) failing to communicate with client regarding the status of the case and/or failing to respond to client’s reasonable requests for information; 25) failing to diligently handle client’s case; 26) charging and collecting an unreasonable fee and/or failing to refund unearned fees to client; 27) failing to respond to disciplinary counsel’s written requests for a response to a client’s grievance, failing to appear for deposition, and/or failing to produce records in response to a subpoena; 28) committing the acts described in the Formal Complaint, thus Pimpleton demonstrated unfitness to practice law.
Decision documents: Hearing Officer’s Decision; Disciplinary Board Order Declining Sua Sponte Review and Adopting Hearing Officer’s Decision; and Washington Supreme Court Order.
Resigned in Lieu of Discipline
Robert Scott Huff (WSBA No. 20507, admitted 1991) of Mill Creek, WA, resigned in lieu of discipline, effective 2/01/2024. The lawyer agrees that they are aware of the alleged misconduct in disciplinary counsel’s Statement of Alleged Misconduct and rather than defend against the allegations, they wish to permanently resign from membership in the Association. Francesca D’Angelo acted as disciplinary counsel. Robert Scott Huff represented themselves.
The Statement of Alleged Misconduct reflects the following violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.4 (Communication), 1.15A (Safeguarding Property), 1.15B (Required Trust Account Records), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 8.4(b) (Criminal Act), 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation), 8.4(i) (Moral Turpitude, Corruption or Disregard of Rule of Law).
Huff’s alleged misconduct includes: 1) committing the crime of theft and/or converting client funds; 2) failing to provide a written accounting to the client; 3) failing to maintain a check register and/or failing to maintain a client ledger; 4) making false statements about the amount of client’s funds remaining in the trust account; 5) failing to return client’s file after the representation terminated; 6) failing to deposit client’s checks into trust account; 7) failing to notify the client about receiving the client’s checks; 8) failing to provide the client with an accounting of the disbursed funds.
Decision document: Resignation Form of Robert Scott Huff (ELC 9.3(b)).
Interim Suspension
Nathan L. McAllister (WSBA No. 37964, admitted 2006) of Bellingham, WA, is suspended from the practice of law in the state of Washington pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, effective 2/15/2024, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary sanction.
Lee Howard Rousso (WSBA No. 33340, admitted 2003) of Renton, WA, is suspended from the practice of law in the state of Washington pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, effective 2/16/2024, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary sanction.
Notice of Hearing on Petition for Reinstatement of William Henry Waechter
A petition for reinstatement after disbarment has been filed by William Henry Waechter (WSBA No. 20602), who was admitted in 1991 and disbarred in 2018. A hearing on Waechter’s petition will be conducted before the Character and Fitness Board on Friday, April 19, 2024. Anyone wishing to do so may file with the Character and Fitness Board a written statement for or against reinstatement, setting forth factual matters showing that the petition does or does not meet the requirements of Washington Supreme Court Admission and Practice Rule (APR) 25.5(a). Except by the Character and Fitness Board’s leave, no person other than the petitioner or petitioner’s counsel shall be heard orally by the Board.
Communications to the Character and Fitness Board should be sent to Counsel to the Character and Fitness Board, Washington State Bar Association, at OGC@wsba.org. This notice is published pursuant to APR 25.4(a).