Washington Supreme Court hears ODC request to suspend attorney for failure to cooperate

The Washington State Supreme Court on April 2 heard a show-cause petition from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel asking the court to suspend attorney Robert Brouillard for failing to cooperate with investigations into alleged trust-account violations.

Henry Crews, counsel for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, told the court that Brouillard is the subject of three grievances alleging conversion of client funds and other trust-account violations and that ‘‘Brouillard has repeatedly failed to comply with ODC’s requests and subpoenas,’’ which has ‘‘prevented ODC from fully investigating these matters.’’ Crews argued that under ELC 7.283 the court may suspend an attorney for noncooperation pending compliance and said that ODC’s sole basis for the interim suspension petition was Brouillard’s lack of cooperation.

Brouillard acknowledged his failure to cooperate and asked the court for more time. ‘‘I don’t have an excuse for my failure to cooperate,’’ he said, describing recent personal hardships, including the death of his brother and diagnoses of depression and anxiety. Brouillard told the court he has practiced law for 35 years, has 14 open matters that he said could be resolved or substituted in the coming weeks, and asked the court to hold any suspension in abeyance while he winds down his practice and provides the requested documents.

When asked by the court what would change if more time were granted, Brouillard said his difficulties were a mix of personal, technical and staffing issues, noting that a contract paralegal had retired and that he is ‘‘the least technically savvy’’ person. He told the court he would produce the remaining documents ‘‘by no later than the last weekday this month, April.’’

Crews told the court that assurances in the past had not led to full production and that conditional promises had repeatedly gone unfulfilled. ‘‘Time and time again, I will give them to you in a week,’’ Crews said, summarizing ODC’s record, ‘‘and he doesn’t follow through. . . . There’s simply no assurance that he will provide the documents unless the court orders his suspension.’’ Crews said the delay harms the disciplinary process itself, because missing trust-account records prevent ODC from determining whether clients are owed funds and from completing its investigations into alleged conversion or mishandling of client funds.

During questioning, members of the court asked whether a conditional order of suspension that would prompt production by a set date might be effective. Crews responded that, in his experience, the bar had received repeated assurances that did not materialize into full compliance and that only a court order would provide the necessary assurance. He also clarified that Brouillard previously was reprimanded and placed on a two-year probation in earlier matters, during which he had obligations to provide trust-account records that ODC says remain incomplete.

At the close of arguments, Crews reiterated that ODC ‘‘respectfully request[s] the court to grant the petition and suspend Brouillard’’ to allow the investigation to proceed. The court thanked counsel, submitted the matter and adjourned without issuing a ruling on the record.

The transcript contains inconsistent renderings of the respondent’s surname (variants appear in the record). This article uses the spelling ‘‘Brouillard’’ as it appears repeatedly in the arguments. The court did not announce an interim suspension on the record; further orders, if any, would be reflected in the court’s written disposition.