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
Shakespear N. Feyissa (WSBA No. 33747, admitted 2003) of Seattle, was disbarred, effective 6/18/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. Francesca D’Angelo, Nate Blanchard, and Benjamin Attanasio acted as disciplinary counsel. Anne I. Seidel represented respondent. Janice Sue Wang was the hearing officer. James D. Hicks was the settlement hearing officer.
The lawyer’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.4 (Communication), 1.5 (Fees), 1.15A (Safeguarding Property), 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4(a) (Violate the RPCs), 8.4(b) (Criminal Act), 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation), and 8.4(l) (ELC violation).
The hearing officer recommended, and the court ordered, that Feyissa be disbarred from the practice of law in Washington state.
Feyissa was found to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by 1) making false statements to one or more insurance providers and/or third parties personally or through a paralegal; 2) failing to give one or more clients reasonable and fair disclosure of material elements of the fee agreement, misrepresenting the amounts of subrogation liens against one or more client’s recoveries, and/or making one or more misrepresentations as to whom the “Mahler” and/or other fees would be paid; 3) charging and/or collecting unreasonable fees; 4) failing to maintain disputed funds from a client’s settlement in trust until the dispute with the insurance company was resolved; 5) submitting false evidence to ODC during a grievance investigation; 6) lying to a third person about what a client’s insurer was offering to settle the client’s case; and 7) failing to promptly pay to a third person what the third person was entitled to receive.
Decision documents: Hearing Officer’s Amended Decision; Disciplinary Board Order Adopting Hearing Officer’s Decision; and Washington Supreme Court Order.
Shannon Marie McMinimee (WSBA No. 34471, admitted 2003) of Outlook, was disbarred, effective 6/22/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. Francisco Rodriguez acted as disciplinary counsel. Shannon Marie McMinimee represented themselves. Randolph O. Petgrave III 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), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 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), 8.4(j) (Violate a Court Order), 8.4(l) (ELC violation), and 8.4(n) (Unfitness to Practice Law).
The hearing officer recommended, and the court ordered, that McMinimee be disbarred from the practice of law in Washington state.
McMinimee was found to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by 1) representing clients on a contingent fee basis without having a written fee agreement signed by the clients which sets forth how the fee will be determined; 2) filing suit on behalf of a client without authorization to do so; 3) failing to exercise reasonable diligence and failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation, including by failing to appear at a scheduling conference, failing to comply with deadlines, failing to make initial disclosures, failing to timely respond to requests for discovery, failing to timely communicate with opposing counsel and their staff, failing to timely respond to a motion to dismiss, and failing to monitor a client’s age during the representation; 4) making a false statement to the court regarding respondent’s reasons for failing to attend a scheduling conference; 5) failing to timely provide initial disclosures in violation of a court order and court rule and failing to timely respond to discovery requests; 6) failing to communicate with clients regarding the status of their case, failing to inform them of discovery requests, and failing to explain developments sufficiently to allow informed decisions regarding the representation; 7) withholding information from clients regarding the status of their case and making false and misleading statements regarding the reasons for terminating the representation; 8) making false statements to disciplinary counsel in a written response to a grievance; 9) providing false deposition testimony regarding provision of a dismissal order to clients; 10) representing clients on a contingent fee basis without having a written fee agreement signed by the clients that set forth how the fee would be determined; 11) continuing to represent a client after the client reached the age of majority without obtaining authorization to do so; 12) failing to act with reasonable diligence and failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation, including by failing to comply with deadlines, respond to motions, cooperate with discovery requests, timely communicate and confer with opposing counsel and staff, file required status reports, avoid scheduling conflicts, serve a pretrial statement, submit mediation materials, respond to a show cause order, file a proposed pretrial order, motions in limine, a trial brief, proposed voir dire questions and jury instructions, monitor a client’s age during the representation, serve dismissal orders, and file proof of service; 13) failing to comply with deadlines established by court order and court rule and failing to comply with court orders relating to required filings and procedures; 14) failing to communicate with clients regarding the status of their case and failing to explain developments sufficiently to permit informed decisions concerning the representation; 15) withholding information from clients regarding the status of their case and making false statements regarding the reason the matter was dismissed; 16) making false statements to a mediator regarding a client’s authority to act on behalf of another client; 17) providing false deposition testimony regarding actions taken during the representation; 18) representing a client on a contingent fee basis without having a written fee agreement signed by the client that set forth how the fee would be determined; 19) filing an appeal on behalf of a client without authorization to do so; 20) failing to exercise reasonable diligence in federal court litigation, including by failing to appear at a scheduling conference, make initial disclosures, cooperate with discovery demands, timely communicate with opposing counsel and staff, respond to a motion for summary judgment, and seek additional time to respond; 21) failing to timely provide initial disclosures in federal litigation; 22) failing to exercise reasonable diligence in a federal appeal, including by failing to file a mediation questionnaire, opening brief, excerpts of record, maintain a current email address with the court, and monitor the court docket; 23) failing to communicate with a client regarding the status of one or more cases and failing to explain developments sufficiently to permit informed decisions; 24) withholding information from a client regarding the status of a case, failing to disclose the filing of an appeal, making false and misleading statements to the client, and making false statements to family members regarding the status of the litigation; 25) failing to exercise reasonable diligence in an administrative proceeding by failing to respond to a motion for summary judgment and to an inquiry from an administrative law judge; 26) failing to exercise reasonable diligence and failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite an administrative proceeding, including by failing to timely prepare and file declarations, timely respond to a motion, and ascertain client availability before making representations to the tribunal; 27) making false statements to an administrative law judge regarding declarations, client attestations, and hearing availability; 28) failing to communicate with a client regarding the status of an administrative proceeding, failing to promptly respond to inquiries, and failing to explain developments sufficiently to permit informed decisions; 29) making false statements in a reply brief submitted in an administrative proceeding; 30) failing to respond to a motion for summary judgment in an administrative proceeding; 31) failing to appear at one or more administrative hearings; 32) failing to exercise reasonable diligence by failing to appear at hearings, failing to notify the tribunal in advance of a possible inability to appear, and failing to timely explain the reasons for the failure to appear; 33) failing to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation by failing to timely respond to requests for information, provide written responses, produce subpoenaed records, submit to deposition, respond to investigative inquiries, and provide requested credentials; 34) making false statements to disciplinary counsel regarding receipt of correspondence, responses allegedly sent, communications received, and personal medical and dental conditions; 35) failing to serve an affidavit of compliance as required by the disciplinary rules; 36) representing clients on a contingent fee basis without having a written fee agreement signed by the clients that set forth how the fee would be determined; 37) filing an appeal on behalf of clients without authorization to do so; 38) failing to exercise reasonable diligence, including by failing to communicate with opposing counsel and staff, make initial disclosures, provide discovery, cooperate in scheduling depositions and medical examinations, respond to motions, comply with deadlines, maintain current court contact information, notify the court of a change in law firm affiliation, and monitor the court docket; 39) failing to timely provide initial disclosures and failing to immediately notify clients in writing of the dismissal of an appeal as required by court orders; 40) failing to communicate with clients regarding the status of their cases, failing to explain developments sufficiently to permit informed decisions, and failing to provide requested updates; 41) withholding information from clients regarding the status of their cases, making misleading statements regarding the status of an appeal, making false statements to a third party, and making a false statement to opposing counsel regarding initial disclosures; 42) making false statements to a court regarding receiving medical treatment; 43) testifying falsely under oath concerning counsel status and purported medical treatment; 44) failing to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation by failing to respond to requests for information, provide requested medical information and releases, produce subpoenaed records, and submit to deposition; 45) feigning impaired speech during a deposition; 46) making false statements to the Washington Supreme Court during a show cause hearing and in a declaration submitted to the Court; 47) failing to exercise reasonable diligence by failing to file an answer to a counterclaim, timely file a motion to dismiss, timely file an opening brief, and respond to an order to show cause; 48) failing to timely file an opening brief or motion and failing to respond to an order to show cause; 49) making false statements in a written response to a grievance regarding clients’ purported strategic decisions concerning litigation; and 50) engaging in conduct that demonstrated an 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.
Jeremiah Spencer Styles (WSBA No. 49543, admitted 2015) of Edmonds, was disbarred, effective 7/16/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. Henry Cruz acted as disciplinary counsel. Jeremiah Spencer Styles represented themselves.
The lawyer’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 5.1 (Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer), 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(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (Prejudicial to the Admin of Justice), 8.4(j) (Willful Disobedience of a Court Order or Rule), and 8.4(l) (ELC violation).
Styles stipulated to disbarment for: 1) failing to interview any state witnesses, failing to be prepared for trial, and failing to appear at multiple trial call hearings in a client’s felony matter; 2) failing to explain an associate attorney’s limited legal experience to the client; 3) failing to request the court’s authorization to withdraw from the client’s matter after trial was set; 4) assigning the client’s trial to an associate attorney, ratifying the associate attorney’s decision not to interview any state witnesses, and failing to supervise the associate attorney; 5) failing to provide competent representation to clients in immigration matters; 6) unreasonably delaying clients’ immigration matters, preparing applications for immigration benefits for which the client were ineligible, and/or failing to investigate a client’s immigration record; 7) failing to inform or timely inform clients in immigration matters of the denial of their application, their ineligibility for benefits, and/or respondent’s failure to file an application; 8) failing to comply with all duties under ELC Title 14; 9) practicing law during respondent’s suspension; and 10) making false or misleading statements in respondent’s affidavit of compliance.
Decision documents: Disciplinary Board Order Approving Stipulation to Disbarment; Stipulation to Disbarment; and Washington Supreme Court Order.
Resigned in Lieu of Discipline
Robert Patrick Brouillard (WSBA No. 19786, admitted 1990) of Shoreline, resigned in lieu of discipline, effective 6/12/2026. 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. Henry Cruz acted as disciplinary counsel. Robert Patrick Brouillard represented themselves.
The Statement of Alleged Misconduct reflects the following violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication),1.15A (Safeguarding Property), 1.15B (Required Trust Account Records), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 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), 8.4(i) (Moral Turpitude, Corruption or Disregard of Rule of Law), and 8.4(l) (ELC violation).
Brouillard’s alleged misconduct includes: 1) misappropriating client funds held in respondent’s trust account, 2) testifying falsely under oath at an ODC deposition, 3) making false statements in the written response to a client’s grievance, 4) making false or misleading statements to clients, 5) making a false statement to a third party, 6) failing to perform most of the work in a client’s matter when time was of the essence, 7) failing to respond to a client’s requests for information and failing to inform the client of the status of the matter, 8) failing to promptly or accurately provide a written accounting to clients after distributing funds from trust or upon the client’s request, 9) failing to promptly deliver funds to a client, 10) failing to hold client funds in a trust account, 11) failing to provide clients with written notice of respondent’s intent to withdraw earned fees from the trust account, 12) withdrawing funds in excess of the amount clients had on deposit in respondent’s trust account, 13) failing to maintain complete and accurate client ledgers, 14) failing to reconcile the check register to the bank statements and failing to reconcile the check register to the combined total of all client ledgers, 15) failing to comply with ODC’s requests and subpoenas.
Decision document: Resignation Form of Robert Patrick Brouillard ELC 9.3(d).
Robert M. Keefe (WSBA No. 5222, admitted 1973) of Seattle, resigned in lieu of discipline, effective 6/16/2026. 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. Christopher J. Mainard represented respondent.
The Statement of Alleged Misconduct reflects the following violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.15A (Safeguarding Property), 1.15B (Required Trust Account Records), 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation), 8.4(d) (Prejudicial to the Admin of Justice), and 8.4(l) (ELC violation).
Keefe’s alleged misconduct includes: 1) using client funds to cover checks respondent had issued to other clients and/or improperly collecting wire transfer fees from a client and/or improperly rounding respondent’s fee upward; 2) disbursing funds from respondent’s trust account before respondent received the corresponding deposits and/or disbursing funds to clients in excess of the funds the clients had on deposit in respondent’s trust account; 3) commingling respondent’s funds with client funds in respondent’s trust account; 4) failing to maintain a complete and accurate check register for respondent’s trust account; 5) failing to maintain complete and accurate client ledgers; 6) failing to properly reconcile the check register to the bank statements and/or failing to properly reconcile the check register to the combined total of all client ledgers; 7) failing to make reasonable efforts to supervise respondent’s staff and/or the person handling respondent’s trust account; 8) submitting one or more false statements to ODC regarding respondent’s withdrawal of respondent’s funds from respondent’s trust account in 2016; 9) submitting one or more false statements to ODC and/or a Review Committee of the Disciplinary Board regarding respondent’s practice of issuing post-dated checks to clients; 10) disbursing funds from respondent’s trust account before respondent received the corresponding deposits during the period from Dec. 1, 2017, to Jan. 31, 2020; 11) disbursing funds to clients in excess of the funds the clients had on deposit in respondent’s trust account during the period from Dec. 1, 2017, to Jan. 31, 2020; 12) failing to maintain complete and accurate client ledgers during the period from Jan. 1, 2024, to April 30, 2025; 13) withdrawing client funds from trust to which respondent was not entitled, for respondent’s own use, during the period from Jan. l, 2024, to April 30, 2025; 14) failing to properly reconcile the trust account check register balance to the combined total of all client ledgers during the period from Jan. 1, 2024, to April 30, 2025; and 15) failing to make reasonable efforts to supervise person handling respondent’s trust account during the period from Jan. 1, 2024, to April 30, 2025.
Decision document: Resignation Form of Robert M. Keefe ELC 9.3(b).
John Michael McWilliams (WSBA No. 44254, admitted 2011) of Bellevue, resigned in lieu of discipline, effective 6/22/2026. 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. Henry Cruz acted as disciplinary counsel. Kenneth Scott Kagan represented respondent. Jeff H. Capell was the hearing officer. Timothy J. O’Connell was the settlement hearing officer.
The Statement of Alleged Misconduct reflects the following violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.4 (Communication), 1.5 (Fees), 1.15A (Safeguarding Property), 1.15B (Required Trust Account Records), 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), 8.4(i) (Moral Turpitude, Corruption or Disregard of Rule of Law), and 8.4(l) (ELC violation).
McWilliams’ alleged misconduct includes: 1) misappropriating estate funds, charging a client’s credit card without authorization, and/or using the client’s advance bond without authorization; 2) using and/or converting client funds held in trust; 3) failing to deposit the client’s advance bond into a trust account and/or failing to hold estate funds in a trust account; 4) withdrawing funds from the trust account before fees were earned and/or failing to provide the client with written notice of respondent’s intent to withdraw earned fees from the trust account; 5) failing to promptly and/or accurately provide a written accounting to the client after distributing funds from trust and/or upon the client’s request, and/or failing to timely communicate with the client regarding fees allegedly earned; 6) failing to promptly deliver funds to the client for distribution to the heirs of the estate; 7) failing to maintain disputed legal fees in trust; 8) using estate funds on behalf of another client and/or disbursing funds in excess of the amount a client had on deposit; 9) failing to maintain a complete and/or current check register; 10) failing to maintain complete and/or current client ledgers; 11) failing to reconcile check registers with client ledgers; 12) collecting tens of thousands of dollars more than the amount earned in the relevant estate matter; 13) making false statements in connection with the disciplinary investigation; 14) testifying falsely under oath at a Jan. 23, 2025, deposition; and 15) failing to respond, and/or to respond promptly, to disciplinary counsel’s written requests and/or subpoenas for records.
Decision document: Resignation Form of John Michael McWilliams ELC 9.3(b).
Suspended
Rebecca Sirius Fritch Flanagan (WSBA No. 39426, admitted 2007) of Portland, OR, was suspended for 30 days, effective 3/13/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline in accordance with an order of the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon. For more information, see https://www.osbar.org/_docs/dbreport/2026/FLANAGAN
RebeccaSiriusFritch24-201.pdf. Henry Cruz acted as disciplinary counsel. Nellie Quinn Barnard represented respondent.
Decision document: The Washington Supreme Court Order.
Paul F. Sherman II (WSBA No. 36091, admitted 2005) of Portland, OR, was suspended for 30 days, effective 5/01/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline in accordance with an order of the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon. For more information, see https://www.osbar.org/_docs/dbreport/2026/SHERMANPaulF24-28.pdf. Henry Cruz acted as disciplinary counsel. Paul F. Sherman II represented themselves.
Decision document: The Washington Supreme Court Order.
Reprimanded
Robert R. Cossey (WSBA No. 16481, admitted 1986) of Spokane, was reprimanded, effective 5/21/2026, by order of the Chief Hearing Officer. Francisco Rodriguez acted as disciplinary counsel. Robert R. Cossey represented themselves.
The lawyer’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3 (Diligence) and 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation).
Cossey stipulated to reprimand for: 1) in a dependency matter, failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the planned hearing to address visitation between a client and the client’s minor child took place and failing to exercise reasonable diligence in reviewing proposed orders, 2) failing to file a notice of intent to withdraw and failing to otherwise notify the court of the termination of the representation.
Decision documents: Order Approving Stipulation to Reprimand; Stipulation to Reprimand; and Notice of Reprimand.
Douglas Lawrence Losak (WSBA No. 24106, admitted 1994) of Ukiah, CA, was reprimanded, effective 6/01/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline in accordance with an order of the Supreme Court of the State of California. For more information, see https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/220443. Henry Cruz acted as disciplinary counsel. Douglas Lawrence Losak represented themselves.
Decision document: The Washington Supreme Court Order.
Paul Andrew Petry (WSBA No. 23605, admitted 1994) of Seattle, was reprimanded, effective 6/08/2026, by order of the Chief Hearing Officer. Thea Jennings acted as disciplinary counsel. Todd Anthony Bowers represented respondent.
The lawyer’s conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.15A (Safeguarding Property) and 1.15B (Required Trust Account Records).
Petry stipulated to reprimand for: 1) failing to maintain a check register for respondent’s trust account, 2) failing to maintain complete and accurate client ledgers, 3) failing to reconcile a trust account check register to bank statements and failing to reconcile the trust account check register to the combined total of all client ledgers, 4) disbursing funds from a trust account before the client’s deposit from which the fees were to be drawn had cleared respondent’s trust account, and 5) disbursing funds from a trust account before respondent had fully earned those fees.
Decision documents: Order Approving Stipulation to Reprimand; Stipulation to Reprimand; and Notice of Reprimand.
Interim Suspension
Eliseo Hidalgo Arebalos Jr. (WSBA No. 60504, admitted 2023) of West Hollywood, CA, is suspended from the practice of law in the state of Washington pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, effective 6/12/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary sanction.
Jenifer A. Robinson (WSBA No. 35326, admitted 2004) of Tukwila, is suspended from the practice of law in the state of Washington pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, effective 7/02/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary sanction.
Nathan J. St. Goddard (WSBA No. 43680, admitted 2011) of Browning, MT, is suspended from the practice of law in the state of Washington pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, effective 6/05/2026, by order of the Washington Supreme Court. This is not a disciplinary sanction.