The ineffectiveness of the WA lawyer discipline system
as shown by the Gerald Neil case.

          In early 1995, the family of an deceased elderly woman for whom Tacoma lawyer Gerald Neil's guardianship business, Pacific Guardianship Services ("PGS"), had been court-appointed guardian learned shocking news. Mr. Neil's staff had lost track of one of her bank certificates of deposit, then discovered it more than a year after she had died and PGS had been discharged. Upon discovering the CD, Mr. Neil did not notify the family, but simply cashed it in, paying half the money to the state Medicaid office and keeping the other half for himself.

            Upon learning from the Dave Ross radio show in April 1995 of my criticism of Pierce County guardianship pratices, a family representative contacted me. I was aware from Mr. Neil's own boasts in a January 1995 letter that the eight clerical assistants in his one-lawyer office were handling 227 "active and ongoing guardianships." And I had received many, many complaints about him and his staff from persons being "served" by Mr. Neil and PGS. I therefore assisted the family, without charge, to submit to the State Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel in early June 1995 a well-documented grievance against lawyer Gerald Neil.

            It took four and a half years before Mr. Neil was sanctioned. At several points along the way, the State Bar disciplinary staff was eager to close his case with a much milder level of discipline than he eventually received -- a reprimand -- in December 1999. Click here to review some of my letters urging the State Bar disciplinary officials (in the public interest, without charging the woman's family) to recognize the gravity of his misconduct and the number of vulnerable persons at risk from what at the very least was a profound lack of effective staff training and monitoring in his high-volume guardianship practice.

            I believe that lawyer disciplinary investigations are inadequate and disciplinary proceedings take far too long. My experience with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, best illustrated by the case of Grant L. Anderson and the other lawyers in his law firm, is that the office really does not "investigate" but simply corresponds over many months with an accused lawyer and generally accepts any explanation that he or she offers.

    By Doug Schafer, Idealistic Lawyer and Washington State Supreme Court Candidate.

(end)