In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Van Camp
Washington Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtC. Johnson, J.
¶1 This attorney discipline case focuses on an ambiguous written fee agreement, the representation provided in the litigation, and the attorney’s conduct during the grievance investigation. Attorney W. Russell Van Camp required a $25,000 initial “retainer” fee to represent a client in an injunction suit, but he did not explain to the client whether it was a nonrefundable flat fee, an hourly fee, or something else. Nor did the fee agreement Van Camp prepared. When the client expressed confusion about the fee, Van Camp asserted it was a flat fee and made no effort to renegotiate in accordance…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- State v. SwanWashington Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. RikerWashington Supreme Court · 1994
- Matter of Disciplinary Proceeding Against CurranWashington Supreme Court · 1990
- In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against MarshallWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- Disciplinary Proceeding Against MarshallWashington Supreme Court · 2007
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Board of Professional Responsibility v. ReguliTennessee Supreme Court · 2015
- In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against ContehWashington Supreme Court · 2012
- In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceeding Against Van CampWashington Supreme Court · 2011
- In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against StarczewskiWashington Supreme Court · 2013
- In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against SimmerlyWashington Supreme Court · 2012
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.