## Facts

- Arthur H. Boelter, a Washington attorney, was retained in 1990 by Robert Withey to assist with an IRS dispute; Withey paid an $800 advance fee deposit into the firm’s trust account.
- During the initial conference, Withey disclosed confidential information about prior IRS dealings; Boelter concluded Withey had concealed assets and lied to the IRS.
- Substantive legal work largely ceased by November 1990, but the firm claimed Withey owed additional fees.
- In 1991, Boelter directed collection letters seeking payment; on October 8, 1991, he demanded $1,824.33 and threatened to file suit if unpaid within a week.
- The October 8 letter stated that if suit were filed Boelter would be “forced to reveal” Withey’s alleged concealment of assets and “lying” to the IRS, referred to possible perjury penalties, and referenced purported tape-recorded conversations supporting those assertions.
- The firm later sued Withey for fees; in the ensuing dispute, Boelter provided an affidavit stating any tapes had been erased.
- Withey filed a bar complaint; the WSBA Disciplinary Board found misconduct for (1) threatening to reveal client confidences, (2) misrepresenting the existence/content of disclosable tapes, and (3) charging an unreasonable fee, and recommended a six-month suspension.

## Issues

1. Whether a clear preponderance of the evidence supported findings that Boelter violated professional rules by threatening disclosure of client confidential information to pressure payment of fees.
2. Whether a clear preponderance of the evidence supported findings that Boelter engaged in dishonesty or misrepresentation regarding tape-recorded conversations.
3. Whether a clear preponderance of the evidence supported a finding that Boelter charged an unreasonable fee.
4. Whether a six-month suspension was the appropriate sanction under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court gave considerable weight to the Disciplinary Board’s determinations but independently reviewed whether misconduct was proven by a clear preponderance of the evidence.
- The court upheld the findings that Boelter improperly threatened to disclose client confidences and secrets as leverage in a fee dispute.
- The court upheld the finding that Boelter misrepresented the existence or disclosable nature/content of tape recordings in connection with the fee dispute.
- The court upheld the finding that the fee charged was unreasonable under the applicable reasonableness factors.
- The court ordered a six-month suspension, concluding the recommended sanction appropriately reflected the duties violated, Boelter’s knowing mental state, and the potential injury to the client.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer’s confidentiality obligations prohibit using client confidential information as coercion in a fee dispute; any disclosure permitted to establish or collect a fee must be limited to what is necessary for that purpose.
- Pre-litigation threats to expose client wrongdoing, especially coupled with references to criminal liability, can constitute an improper use of confidential information even if limited disclosure might later be permissible in litigation.
- Knowingly making false or misleading statements to a client to obtain payment, including assertions about incriminating evidence, violates prohibitions on dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
- Fees must be reasonable under the governing professional rules; billing must reflect the work performed and relevant factors such as time, labor, difficulty, and results.
- In determining sanctions, the court applies the ABA Standards by assessing the duty violated, the lawyer’s mental state, actual or potential injury, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances; knowing violations involving confidentiality and dishonesty justify suspension.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court suspended Boelter for six months after finding, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, that he knowingly threatened to reveal client confidences to force payment, misrepresented purported tape-recorded evidence, and charged an unreasonable fee, warranting discipline to protect the public and maintain confidence in the legal profession.


In re Boelter, 985 P.2d 328 (Wash. 1999)