In the Matter of Walter Harry Kopinski (1994)

Overview

This case addresses an attorney’s duties to communicate with clients, to avoid foreseeable prejudice upon withdrawal, and to promptly release client files. The Review Department affirmed a stayed suspension and probation where respondent’s failures spanned several years and caused tangible harm to multiple clients.

Facts

Walter Harry Kopinski was admitted to the California Bar in 1980 and had no prior discipline. He represented several members of the Lee family—including a mother (Joan Lee), daughter (Shelly Lee), and grandmother (Edna Birch)—in a series of related matters arising from a 1984 automobile accident, as well as in bankruptcy and family law proceedings.

In the automobile accident matter, respondent initially undertook to represent both the driver (Shelly) and the passenger plaintiffs. By mid-1985, respondent determined he could no longer represent Shelly due to conflicts, but he failed to clearly communicate the withdrawal. Although he transferred Shelly’s file to another attorney, respondent did not inform Shelly of the transfer, did not provide successor counsel’s contact information, and continued to tell her to contact him with questions. As a result, Shelly remained unaware of the status of her claim for years.

Respondent’s communication failures extended beyond 1987, after the effective date of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m). Shelly continued attempting to obtain information and her file into 1988, without clear responses from respondent.

Respondent also represented Joan Lee in three matters: (1) a bankruptcy-related action involving ownership of an Oregon residence, (2) a family law separation proceeding, and (3) her personal injury claim arising from the same automobile accident. In the bankruptcy matter, respondent entered into a stipulated judgment affecting Joan’s property interests without obtaining her informed, specific consent. Joan later retained new counsel to attempt to set aside the stipulation.

Beginning in early 1987, Joan repeatedly requested that respondent return her files and communicate with her new counsel. Respondent refused to release the files without a signed substitution of attorney and repeatedly sent correspondence to incorrect addresses, despite knowing Joan had moved. These failures contributed to delays, additional legal expenses, and ultimately the dismissal with prejudice of Joan’s personal injury lawsuit when neither she nor successor counsel appeared for trial.

Charges

Defenses

Respondent argued that most of the alleged communication failures occurred before section 6068(m) became effective, that he had transferred Shelly’s file and therefore had no further duties to her, and that Joan’s failure to execute a substitution of attorney excused his refusal to release her files.

The Review Department rejected these arguments, holding that respondent’s failures extended well beyond the statute’s effective date and that an attorney’s duty to avoid prejudice and release client files is not conditioned on receipt of a signed substitution.

Mitigation and Aggravation

• Aggravation: Multiple acts of misconduct over several years; harm to clients including loss of legal claims; repeated failures affecting more than one client.
• Mitigation: No prior discipline (discounted due to remoteness); limited good faith efforts; candor and cooperation with the State Bar.

Outcome

The Review Department upheld the hearing judge’s findings and discipline recommendation. Respondent was suspended for six months, with the suspension stayed, and placed on probation for two years with no actual suspension.

Probation conditions included appointment of a probation monitor, completion of Ethics School, passage of the California Professional Responsibility Examination, and submission of an office organization plan. The court deleted one proposed condition requiring membership in the State Bar’s Law Practice Management Section.

Sanctions Table