THESE NOTICES OF THE IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS AND ACTIONS involving lawyers, limited practice officers (LPOs), and limited license legal technicians (LLLTs). Active links to directory listings, which provide additional information and documents related to the disciplinary matter, and other linked information can be found by viewing the online version of Washington State Bar News at www.wabarnews.org or by looking up the respondent in the Discipline Notice Directory at https://www.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
Joseph W. Kuhlman (WSBA No. 42884, admitted 2010) of Spokane, was disbarred, effective 3/31/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. Kathy Jo Blake and Nate Blanchard acted as disciplinary counsel. Joseph W. Kuhlman represented themselves. Knowrasa T. Patrick was the hearing officer.
The lawyer’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5 (Fees), 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law), 5.8 (Misconduct Involving Disbarred, Suspended, Resigned, and Inactive Lawyers), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(a) (Attempt, Assists or Induce), 8.4(b) (Criminal Act), 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (Prejudicial to the Admin of Justice), 8.4(i) (Moral Turpitude, Corruption or Disregard of Rule of Law), and 8.4(l) (ELC violation).
The hearing officer recommended, and the court ordered, that Kuhlman be disbarred from the practice of law in Washington state.
Kuhlman was found to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by 1) providing false information to Judge Dimke and filing a response to the U.S. District Court’s Feb. 26, 2025, show cause order that contained one or more false statements of fact and/or law; 2) causing Judge Dimke to appoint Kuhlman’s client a federal public defender and set one or more court hearings and issue more than one court order to facilitate delivery of the client’s file to the client; 3) testifying falsely under oath that respondent terminated an employee for performance issues related to the client’s case; 4) failing to promptly provide the client with a copy of their client file; 5) falsely stating to ODC that respondent fired respondent’s office manager and providing ODC with a fabricated email that purported to fire one of respondent’s employees; 6) failing to promptly respond to disciplinary counsel’s March 17, 2025, investigative inquiry; 7) failing to effectuate service on the defendants and failing to take actions to prosecute a client’s case; 8) failing to keep the client informed about the status of their case and failing to respond to the client’s reasonable requests for information; 9) collecting $9,500 and performing work of little value to the client, failing to provide the client information about fees and costs, and failing to refund unearned fees; 10) providing false and misleading information to the client about the status of respondent’s license, about respondent’s ability to represent the client, and about the circumstances of respondent’s suspension, and failing to advise the client that they should seek legal advice elsewhere; 11) failing to file anything on a client’s behalf for over a year and failing to diligently pursue an order vacating the client’s convictions and/or an order restoring the client’s firearm rights; 12) collecting $4,250 from the client and then failing to perform any work on the matter and failing to return unearned fees; 13) lying to the client about the case status, progress, lack of progress, and the reasons for the delay in resolving the client’s case; 14) failing to respond to disciplinary counsel’s written requests for a response to the client’s grievance and failing to produce all documents in respondent’s possession relating to respondent’s representation of the client; 15) failing to diligently pursue an order for amended release conditions and failing to appear at the Sept. 20, 2024, hearing in a client’s criminal case; 16) making one or more false statements to Judge Biviano during the small claims hearing; 17) failing to refund unearned fees to the client; 18) making one or more false and/or misleading statements in respondent’s response to ODC; 19) failing to promptly respond to disciplinary counsel’s written requests for a response to the client’s grievance, failing to produce the client’s client file as commanded by a subpoena, and failing to appear as commanded by a subpoena at the Jan. 6, 2025, deposition of respondent by ODC; 20) failing to diligently pursue a client’s protection order; 21) failing to respond to the client’s reasonable requests for information; 22) collecting a $4,354.40 flat fee from the client then failing to perform any work of value to the client and failing to refund unearned fees; 23) lying to the client about the status of respondent’s law license, and lying to the client about the circumstances surrounding respondent’s interim suspension; 24) lying to ODC about the work performed on the client’s case, providing ODC with a fabricated document, lying to ODC about the reasons for respondent’s non-responsiveness to ODC’s request for a response to the grievance, and providing false and misleading information to ODC about respondent’s compliance with ELC 14.1; 25) failing to promptly respond to disciplinary counsel’s written requests for responses to the client’s grievance, failing to produce all documents in respondent’s possession relating to respondent’s representation of the client, and failing to appear as commanded at the Jan. 6, 2025, deposition of respondent by ODC; 26) failing to respond to a client’s reasonable requests for information; 27) collecting $7,000 and then failing to perform any work of value to the client on the matter and failing to refund unearned fees; 28) failing to promptly respond to disciplinary counsel’s written requests for a response to the client’s grievance and failing to produce all documents in respondent’s possession relating to respondent’s representation of the client; 29) failing to diligently pursue a client’s restraining order; 30) collecting $2,000 in fees and then failing to perform any work of value to the client on their matter and failing to refund unearned fees; 31) failing to respond to disciplinary counsel’s written requests for a response to the client’s grievance and failing to produce all documents in respondent’s possession relating to respondent’s representation of the client; 32) proceeding with the motion to release firearms after a client communicated that they did not want respondent to proceed with the motion and that the client wanted the court and authorities to keep and/or destroy the firearms, and arguing or implying to the court that respondent was acting with the client’s authority; 33) failing to inform the client that respondent proceeded with the Feb. 6, 2025, hearing and about the outcome of the Feb. 6, 2025, hearing; 34) engaging respondent’s legal assistant to communicate with prosecutors on respondent’s behalf, attempting to obtain deputy prosecuting attorneys’ agreement to continuances, requesting other lawyers cover respondent’s cases, and having other lawyers stand in for respondent while respondent’s law license was suspended; 35) not informing two other lawyers about the true cause and status of respondent’s law license suspension, lying to another lawyer about submitting responses to ODC, and withholding material information from the court about the client wanting to forfeit the weapons to obtain an order allowing respondent’s law firm to take possession of the client’s firearms; 36) failing to promptly respond to disciplinary counsel’s written requests for a response to a client’s grievance; 37) collecting $15,000 and performing very little work, failing to refund unearned fees, and collecting funds and attempting to collect funds from a client’s parent while respondent’s law license was suspended; 38) discussing the client’s lawyer-client privileged information with the client in front of a third party, discussing the client’s lawyer-client privileged information in a recorded jail phone call with the client and their parent, and discussing the client’s lawyer-client privileged information in a manner that renders it non-privileged; 39) providing legal advice to the client while respondent’s license was suspended and failing to take necessary steps so that the client and their parent (who was also respondent’s client in a different matter) understood not to rely on respondent as a lawyer authorized to practice law; 40) providing false and misleading information to the clients about the status of respondent’s license, about the reason why respondent could not attend court on March 5, 2025, about respondent’s ability to represent them, and about the circumstances of respondent’s suspension, and failing to advise the clients that they should seek legal advice elsewhere.
Decision documents: Hearing Officer’s Decision; Disciplinary Board Order Declining Sua Sponte Review and Adopting Hearing Officer’s Decision; and Washington Supreme Court Order.
Stephen Kenneth Monro (WSBA No. 26075, admitted 1996) of Snohomish, was disbarred, effective 3/12/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. Henry Cruz and Marsha Matsumoto acted as disciplinary counsel. Mr. Monro was represented on appeal by Peter Offenbecher, Beth Andrus, Jennifer Wellman, and Erin Newton, of Skellenger Bender, P.S., and Robert C. Owen, of the Law Offices of Robert C. Owen, LLC. David Bruce Condon was the settlement hearing officer. Joseph M. Mano Jr. 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), 1.15B (Required Trust Account Records), 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 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), and 8.4(l) (ELC violation).
The hearing officer recommended, and the court ordered, that Monro be disbarred from the practice of law in Washington state.
Monro was found to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by 1) using and converting client funds of SW, TC, KF, SA and the Estate of JK; 2) failing to deposit and maintain client funds in a trust account on multiple cases; 3) failing to promptly deliver funds to third persons, such as L&I liens in TC and SA’s cases, which they were entitled to receive; 4) using client funds on behalf of another and disbursing funds in excess of the amounts clients had on deposit in multiple cases; 5) failing to provide KF and SA with a billing statement or written notice of his intent to withdraw earned fees; 6) failing in contingent fee matters, including SA’s matter, to provide clients with a written statement and/or an accurate written statement showing the outcome of the matter, including remittance to the client and the method of its determination; 7) failing to provide a written accounting after disbursing funds from trust in cases with SW, TC, KF and SA; 8) charging and collecting an unreasonable fee in the Estate of JK and SA’s matters; 9) comingling his mother’s and wife’s funds and his own funds with client funds in a trust account; 10) failing to maintain complete and current trust account records in multiple cases; 11) making misrepresentations to ODC during a grievance investigation, testifying falsely at his deposition, and fabricating a document in SA’s case; 12) making false statements to SA and JA; 13) making false statements to a representative of L&I; and 14) using client funds owed to third persons such as in JD’s case.
Decision documents: Hearing Officer’s Amended Decision; Disciplinary Board Order Adopting Hearing Officer’s Decision; and Washington Supreme Court Order.
James Sinclair (WSBA No. 52172, admitted 2017) of Spokane, was disbarred, effective 3/19/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. Francisco Rodriguez acted as disciplinary counsel. James Sinclair represented themselves. Randolph O. Petgrave III was the hearing officer.
The lawyer’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5 (Fees), 1.8 (Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(b) (Criminal Act), 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (Prejudicial to the Admin of Justice), and 8.4(l) (ELC violation).
The hearing officer recommended, and the court ordered, that Sinclair be disbarred from the practice of law in Washington state.
Sinclair was found to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by 1) failing to provide a client with competent representation; 2) making false statements to the court and the prosecutor; 3) making a false statement to the public defender’s office about having submitted a discovery request; 4) paying the fee for the client’s bond and/or by providing a credit card guarantee as security for the bond; 5) failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing the client; 6) terminating the client’s representation without reasonable notice, failing to refund unearned fees and/or costs, and/or failing to preserve and/or provide the client with papers to which the client was entitled; 7) failing to reasonably and promptly communicate with the client regarding the scope of representation and basis for respondent’s fees; 8) charging the client fees for work that was not performed and/or for costs that were not incurred and/or by failing to refund advance payments that were not earned, and 9) failing to promptly respond to disciplinary counsel’s investigative inquiries and/or requests for records, and/or by failing to provide subpoenaed records.
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
Anthony Walton Dougherty (WSBA No. 7334, admitted 1977) of Clinton, resigned in lieu of discipline, effective 4/3/2026. 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. Claire Carden acted as disciplinary counsel. Jeffrey T. Kestle represented respondent.
The Statement of Alleged Misconduct reflects the following violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.4 (Communication), 1.15A (Safeguarding Property), 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), and 5.5 (Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law).
Dougherty’s alleged misconduct includes: 1) failing to supervise a paralegal, 2) assisting the paralegal in the unauthorized practice of law, 3) failing to inform a client about a settlement offer, 4) withdrawing earned fees prior to notifying the client of Dougherty’s intent to do so, 5) failing to provide a written accounting to the client, 6) failing to promptly disburse client funds, and 7) using one client’s funds on behalf of another.
Decision document: Resignation Form of Anthony Walton Dougherty ELC 9.3(b).
G. Christopher Ramsey (WSBA No. 35358, admitted 2004) of Naples, FL, resigned in lieu of discipline, effective 3/3/2026. 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. Francisco Rodriguez acted as disciplinary counsel. G. Christopher Ramsey represented themselves.
The Statement of Alleged Misconduct reflects the following violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation) and 8.4(l) (ELC violation).
Ramsey’s alleged misconduct includes failing to timely notify opposing counsel and the courts of respondent’s suspension and inability to act on behalf of respondent’s clients and failing to serve an affidavit of compliance on the WSBA.
Decision document: Resignation Form of G. Christopher Ramsey ELC 9.3(b).
Suspended
Nichole Danelle Fisher (WSBA No. 54253, admitted 2018) of Lakewood, was suspended for 30 months, effective 3/4/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. Thea Jennings and Kathy Jo Blake acted as disciplinary counsel. Nichole Danelle Fisher represented themselves. Diana Marie Dearmin was the hearing officer.
The lawyer’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5 (Fees), 1.8 (Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), 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(l) (ELC violation), and 8.4(n) (Unfitness to Practice Law).
Fisher stipulated to suspension for: 1) failing to attend a client’s pretrial hearing; 2) accepting payment for a client’s representation from the client’s relative without the client’s informed consent; 3) making one or more false statements to the client and the prosecuting attorney; 4) telling the court a false statement that respondent got a flat tire on the way to court on May 28, 2024; 5) making one or more false statements to ODC during the grievance investigation; 6) failing to object to the state’s proposed restitution order, failing to file any pleading in response to the state’s proposed restitution order, and failing to appear at a restitution hearing; 7) failing to timely provide the medical providers with a client’s police reports and by failing to attend one or more court hearings; 8) failing to appear at one or more court hearings in a client’s criminal matter and failing to appear at the DOL hearing; 9) collecting $3,500 from a client then failing to perform any work on the matter that was of any value to the client; 10) failing to appear at a client’s arraignment; 11) collecting a $5,000 flat fee from the client and then failing to complete the representation on the criminal matter; 12) collecting $10,000 from a client and then failing to perform any work on the matters that was of value to the client; 13) failing to appear at one or more hearings in a client’s criminal matter; 14) collecting a $4,375 flat fee from the client and then failing to complete the representation on the criminal matter; 15) telling the client that the prosecutor had offered a plea to a reduced charge when no such offer had been made and by making one or more false statements to the client about the status of plea negotiations; 16) failing to file a notice of appearance in a DUI matter and by failing to assist a client in obtaining a continuance of the client’s arraignment date in the DUI matter; 17) collecting a $6,000 flat fee from the client and then failing to perform any work on the criminal matter; 18) failing to respond to the client’s reasonable requests for information and by failing to adequately explain the matter to the client to the extent reasonably necessary for the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation in eight client matters; 19) failing to refund unearned fees in six client matters; 20) failing to provide a prompt response to five grievances, failing to provide documents responsive to a subpoena, and by failing to appear at the May 7, 2025, and July 28, 2025, depositions; and 21) committing the acts described in paragraphs 2-141 of the Stipulation to Suspension, Fisher demonstrated unfitness to practice law.
Decision documents: Disciplinary Board Order Approving Stipulation; Stipulation to Suspension; and Washington Supreme Court Order.
Diana E. Moller (WSBA No. 24707, admitted 1995) of Seattle, was suspended for six months, effective 4/3/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. Claire Carden and Marina Busse acted as disciplinary counsel. Kenneth Scott Kagan represented respondent. Henry E. Farber was the hearing officer. Randolph O. Petgrave III was the settlement hearing officer.
The lawyer’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3 (Diligence), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), and 8.4(l) (ELC violation).
The hearing officer recommended, and the court ordered, that Moller be suspended from the practice of law in Washington state for six months, followed by probation for 24 months beginning on the date Diana E. Moller is reinstated to the practice of law.
Moller was found to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by 1) failing to act with reasonable diligence in filing a client’s VAWA application, 2) failing to timely produce the client file, and 3) failing to promptly respond to disciplinary counsel’s requests for a response to the grievance.
Decision documents: Hearing Officer’s Decision; Disciplinary Board Order Declining Sua Sponte Review and Adopting Hearing Officer’s Decision; and Washington Supreme Court Order.
Andrew Michael Reeves (WSBA No. 47116, admitted 2014) of Tacoma, was suspended for one year, effective 3/31/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. Claire Carden acted as disciplinary counsel. Andrew Michael Reeves represented themselves. Janice Sue Wang was the hearing officer.
The lawyer’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 8.4(d) (Prejudicial to the Admin of Justice), and 8.4(j) (Violate a Court Order).
The hearing officer recommended, and the court ordered, that Reeves be suspended from the practice of law in Washington state for one year, followed by probation for two years beginning on the date Andrew Michael Reeves is reinstated to the practice of law.
Reeves was found to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by 1) failing to issue a timely final written decision on the Concrete Nor’west permit application and final written decision on the Concrete Nor’west permit application that complied with Skagit County Code 14.06.160(9), 2) knowingly disobeying court orders, 3) failing to issue a timely final written decision on the North Olympic View Condominiums permit application and a final written decision on the North Olympic View Condominiums permit application that complied with Sequim Municipal Code 2.10.080(D), 4) failing to issue a timely final written decision on the Community Lifeline permit application and a final written decision on the Community Lifeline permit application that complied with Shelton Municipal Code 2.36.170, and 5) failing to issue a timely final written decision on the Pineo permit application and a final written decision on the Pineo permit application that complied with Bremerton Municipal Code 1.04.080(e).
Decision documents: Hearing Officer’s Decision; Disciplinary Board Order Declining Sua Sponte Review and Adopting Hearing Officer’s Decision; and Washington Supreme Court Order.
Adam Andrew Sandoval (WSBA No. 47059, admitted 2014) of Yakima, was suspended for 18 months, effective 4/20/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. Henry Cruz and Thea Jennings acted as disciplinary counsel. Andrew Harry Gustafson represented respondent. Jehiel Baer was the settlement hearing officer. Joseph M. Mano Jr. was the hearing officer.
The lawyer’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.5 (Fees), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 8.4(d) (Prejudicial to the Admin of Justice), and 8.4(l) (ELC violation).
Sandoval stipulated to suspension for: 1) failing to diligently represent a client in a parenting plan modification matter, 2) failing to reasonably communicate with the client about the parenting plan modification matter, 3) charging an unreasonable fee, 4) failing to promptly refund fees for a legal intern’s time that was overbilled and failing to refund other unearned fees, and 5) failing to correct inaccurate information provided to ODC during the grievance investigation.
Decision Documents: Disciplinary Board Order Approving Stipulation; Stipulation to Suspension; and Washington Supreme Court Order.
Reprimanded
Matthew W. Anderson (WSBA No. 43045, admitted 2010) of Seattle, was reprimanded, effective 3/16/2026, by order of the chief hearing officer. Claire Carden acted as disciplinary counsel. Kevin M. Bank represented respondent.
The lawyer’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.5 (Fees).
Anderson stipulated to reprimand for: 1) failing to adequately communicate with his clients about the basis and rate of his fee, and 2) failing to include the required language for flat fee agreements when describing the fee.
Decision documents: Order Approving Stipulation to Reprimand; Stipulation to Reprimand; and Notice of Reprimand.
Interim Suspension
Robert Patrick Brouillard (WSBA No. 19786, admitted 1990) of Shoreline, is suspended from the practice of law in the state of Washington pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, effective 4/3/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary sanction.
Shon Hopwood (WSBA No. 49102, admitted 2015) of Washington, D.C., is suspended from the practice of law in the state of Washington pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, effective 4/24/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary sanction.