## Facts

- Larry A. Botimer, a Washington lawyer with a tax-focused practice, provided long-term tax and related advice to Ruth Reinking and also to her son Jan Reinking and Jan’s wife Janet.
- Ruth owned Magnolia Health Care Center, Inc. and leased related real property to Jan and Janet; Botimer advised on tax and business matters connected to these relationships.
- Ruth also guaranteed loans for Alternative Care Corporation (ACC), linked to another family member, and secured those loans with the Magnolia property; Botimer advised Ruth regarding options related to this arrangement.
- In 2000, Magnolia was closed and the property sold; Jan and Janet expected to receive half the proceeds, but Ruth used proceeds to pay debts associated with ACC.
- Botimer advised Ruth on estate planning while also advising Jan, a potential beneficiary, on overlapping family financial matters.
- Botimer did not obtain informed consent confirmed in writing from any family member regarding concurrent conflicts arising from these representations.
- In 2002, Botimer terminated his representation of Ruth and stated he would notify the IRS that her tax records misstated taxable income.
- In 2004 litigation brought by Jan and Janet against Ruth and others over the sale proceeds, Botimer voluntarily provided Jan and Janet’s counsel three declarations containing Ruth’s financial and business information.
- Ruth did not consent to the disclosures, and no court order compelled them.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the hearing officer’s findings concerning concurrent conflicts of interest and disclosure of client confidences.
2. Whether those findings established violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct governing (a) conflicts requiring informed consent confirmed in writing and (b) confidentiality/attorney-client privilege.
3. Whether a six-month suspension was an appropriate sanction under Washington lawyer discipline standards.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Disciplinary Board’s recommendation and imposed a six-month suspension.
- The court held the hearing officer’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and supported the legal conclusions.
- The court concluded Botimer committed concurrent conflict violations by representing multiple family members with materially divergent interests without obtaining written waivers.
- The court concluded Botimer violated confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege by providing declarations containing a former client’s financial and business information without consent or compulsion.
- The court upheld the sanction as within the appropriate range given the misconduct and the disciplinary objectives of public protection and deterrence.

## Legal Principles

- In lawyer discipline review, factual findings supported by substantial evidence are ordinarily not disturbed and may support affirmance of disciplinary conclusions and sanctions.
- Concurrent representation of clients with potentially adverse interests in related transactions requires informed consent confirmed in writing when mandated by the RPCs.
- A lawyer’s duty of confidentiality persists after termination of representation; a lawyer may not voluntarily disclose a former client’s confidential information absent client consent or a recognized exception.
- Providing confidential client information to assist another client (or former client) in litigation against the former client, without consent or legal compulsion, violates confidentiality duties.
- The Supreme Court gives considerable weight to the disciplinary board’s sanction recommendation but independently determines the appropriate discipline.

## Conclusion

The court suspended Botimer for six months because he represented multiple members of the same family in overlapping business and estate matters without obtaining required written conflict waivers and later disclosed a former client’s confidential financial information in related litigation without consent or a court order.


In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Botimer, 166 Wash. 2d 759 (Wash. 2009)