## Facts

- An 87-year-old assisted-living resident retained attorney Stephen K. Eugster in 2004 to change estate planning and reduce her son Roger’s control over her affairs.
- Eugster prepared new estate-planning documents, including a revocable trust and powers of attorney naming Eugster as agent, suggesting he then had no concern about her capacity.
- After a meeting with Roger, Eugster changed his approach and advised the client that Roger should resume control.
- The client hired new counsel, revoked Eugster’s powers of attorney, and terminated the representation.
- Immediately after learning he had been discharged, Eugster filed a guardianship petition against the former client seeking appointment of a guardian and proposing that Roger serve as guardian, contrary to the client’s stated objectives.
- The petition alleged the client was unable to manage her person and estate and included detailed personal, medical, and financial information obtained during the attorney-client relationship.
- Eugster filed the petition without consulting healthcare providers or the assisted-living facility and without a formal investigation of competency.
- A guardian ad litem evaluated the client and found her mentally competent; Eugster later withdrew the petition.
- The client incurred approximately $13,500 in legal fees defending against the guardianship proceedings.
- In the disciplinary matter, the WSBA charged multiple counts of misconduct; a hearing officer recommended disbarment, and the Disciplinary Board unanimously agreed; Eugster sought review.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported findings that Eugster violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct by filing an unfounded guardianship petition against a former client, acting contrary to the client’s objectives, disclosing confidential information, and mishandling termination/transfer of the representation.
2. Whether Eugster’s conduct was excused or justified by former RPC 1.13 (1985) or related authority regarding protective action for an allegedly impaired client.
3. What sanction was appropriate under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, considering duties violated, mental state, injury, and aggravating/mitigating factors.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court upheld the findings of professional misconduct, deferring to supported factual findings and independently determining the appropriate sanction.
- The court rejected Eugster’s claim that his conduct was justified as protective action for a diminished-capacity client because he lacked an adequate factual basis and failed to investigate before seeking guardianship.
- The court declined to impose disbarment despite the hearing officer and Disciplinary Board recommendations.
- The court imposed an 18-month suspension with additional conditions.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may not use legal proceedings against a current or former client in a manner that is unsupported by adequate investigation and inconsistent with the client’s stated objectives.
- Confidential client information may not be disclosed in a proceeding adverse to the client absent a valid, narrowly tailored basis under the professional conduct rules.
- Claims of acting to protect an allegedly impaired client require a reasonable, fact-based basis; a subjective belief is insufficient when the lawyer failed to investigate and less intrusive options were available.
- In lawyer discipline, the court independently determines sanction but generally upholds supported factual findings; sanctions are set using the ABA Standards by assessing duty violated, mental state, actual or potential injury, and aggravating/mitigating factors.
- Serious misconduct causing actual client harm can warrant a lengthy suspension even where the lawyer has a long, previously unblemished record.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Eugster committed multiple ethical violations by filing a baseless guardianship petition against a former client, disclosing confidential information, and acting contrary to the client’s objectives, and it imposed an 18-month suspension with conditions rather than disbarment after weighing the ABA sanction factors and mitigation from an otherwise discipline-free career.


In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Eugster, 209 P.3d 435 (Wash. 2009)