3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
DRAFT – worksheet to support form of Questions to Prove during trial:
I. FACTS
1. Defendants contracted the law firm of Van Kampen & Crowe to represent them in
a Department of Health Investigation and help to get it discharged in an expeditious manner that
would not result in much expense to Defendants. The attorney on record at all times described in
this Counterclaim was Mr. Al Van Kampen, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of
Washington.
2. At the time of retaining the Plaintiff, the Defendants specifically informed and instructed
the Plaintiff of at least the following:
(a) That Mr. Stevens sought to resolve this matter through formal settlement
conference as described on page 2 of the Notice of Your Legal Rights
documents as well as an Answer to Statement of Charges and Request for
Settlement & Hearing form.
(b) That Defendants total allocated fee budget for Plaintiff’s handling of this
administrative matter was $3,900.00; and
(c) That the court-ordered deadline for Plaintiff to file the Answer to Statement of
Charges and Request for Settlement & Hearing form was April 24, 2017.
3. Approximately on dates between May 2, 2017 and May 4, 2017, the Defendants learned
that the Plaintiff billed Defendants approximately $3,500.00 in legal fees for services that
were purportedly rendered as of March 31, 2017. During the same time frame, the
Defendants disputed the reasonableness of such fees since it amounted to exhausting 90%
of the Defendants allocated fee budget within less than a month of hiring Plaintiff.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
Defendants also inquired about whether the Plaintiff had scheduled a formal settlement
conference. The Plaintiff indicated that it had not.
4. The Defendants read out of a court order indicating that the Plaintiff did not file a timely
answer and did not submit the request for formal settlement in due time.
5. On March 8 th 2017, Defendants paid Van Kampen & Crowe a deposit of $2,000
from the sum of $2,060 via PayPal. A service fee, not in the terms of agreement, of 3% was
charged on the transactions.
6. Defendants received an invoice of approximately $3,455.00 from Mr. Van
Kampen for work done through March 31 st 2017. After applying the trust payment of $2,060.00
paid initially, Defendants paid the balance on the remaining invoice in the sum of $1,457.39.
When paying, Stevens inquired about the status of negotiations with the Attorney General
asking, “Did we hear anything back or we just wait, and the AG office won’t budge?” Mr. Van
Kampen stated that he had spoken to the assistant attorney general assigned to the case but did
not provide particulars of any substantive settlement discussions to resolve the matter.
7. There was a deadline to submit the request for settlement form or paperwork with
the answer on April 24 th 2017. As Defendants’ attorney on record, Mr. Van Kampen was
responsible for filing the paperwork with the answer before the deadline. However, Mr. Van
Kampen missed the deadline for submitting the paperwork with the answer.
8. Mr. Van Kampen did not engage in any discussion with Defendants regarding the
scope of representation or the projected costs of the representation in the matter. He just
responded that the state’s brief was due the following Monday. Defendants had no idea how
much the attorney’s fees and costs would be to file motions and engage in other litigation with
the Department of Health over this matter. Prior to engaging the services of Van Kampen &
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
Crowe, Defendants had informed Mr. Van Kampen that the services were limited and capped at
$3,900.00.
9. Defendants did not receive invoices from Van Kampen & Crowe timely in 2017 and
Van Kampen & Crowe, PLLC submitted 2 types of sets of billing books for 2017.
10. Mr. Al Van Kampen missed the court’s deadline of April 24 th 2017 for filing an
‘Answer and Request for Settlement’, and outside of the administrative law process and prior to
a request for hearing being determined, Mr. Van Kampen filed a motion to dismiss, motion for
writ of mandamus and motion to seal before the administrative law judge to address the
Statement of Charges. This wrongful filing process and action performed by Mr. Van Kampen
was addressed by the Administrative Law Judge & Presiding Officer when the corrective action
was noted to Mr. Van Kampen in the Pre-Hearing Orders #1, 2, and #3.
11. On May 19 th 2017, the Court issued a scheduling order and Notice of Status
Conference and Protective Order.
12. The May 19 th 2017 Protective Order instructed Mr. Van Kampen on how to protect
health information and other confidential documents, and explained that any request aside from
“redaction” would require a modification of the court’s protective order. Mr. Van Kampen had a
fiduciary duty to protect Mr. Stevens information yet Mr. Van Kampen never sought a
modification of the protective order. Mr. Van Kampen knew that a modification of the order
would protect Mr. Steven’s confidential information and documents. By failing to file the
modification of that order Mr. Van Kampen did not look out for Mr. Stevens’ interests which
was protecting his health information and other confidential documents.
13. On May 25 th 2017, the administrative law judge issued a Prehearing Order ()which in
the footnote to paragraph 1.5 referred Al Van Kampen and VKC to the Notice of Legal Rights
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
attached to the Statement of Charges that explained to Mr. Van Kampen how and what
requirements were involved to seek a hearing or settlement of the matter.
14. The Pretrial Order also gave Mr. Van Kampen additional time to follow the proper
rules of administrative procedure as outlined in the Notice of Legal Rights and file an answer to
either request settlement or a hearing along with additional briefing if needed by June 2 nd 2017.
Mr. Al Van Kampen failed to include with the filed Answer the required Request for Settlement
which was the instructions that identified the official way to request for settlement under RCW
34.05.060 and WAC 246-10-401 of the Administrative Procedures Act.
15. Upon receiving of the Pretrial Order from Mr. Van Kampen, Defendants informed
Mr. Birch Frost, the legal assistant working for Mr. Van Kampen that they wanted the matter to
process informal settlement before it went through the hearing process. They wanted to prevent
allegations and misinformation about Defendant and private health information to remain
confidential from public disclosure, and they chose to not proceed any further.
16. On May 31, 2017, in email correspondence, Defendants informed Mr. Van Kampen
that sealing the documents and avoiding a public hearing regarding the matter was of
importance.
17. Mr. Van Kampen filed the answer to Statement of Charges on June 2 nd 2017 without
following the proper process nor filing the required response and paperwork to trigger the
preferred informal settlement procedure under WAC 246-10-401, thus losing the opportunity
Plaintiffs had for a settlement process prior to hearing to forego expense of a hearing.
18. Soon after filing the answer, Mr. Van Kampen and Defendants in June 2017
discussed the attorney fees incurred for the lawsuit and Defendants made it very clear that they
could not afford legal services from Mr. Van Kampen that cost more than $500.00 a month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
during any 30-day cycle for legal services with a clarification that any services above $500 a
month would be done on a pro bono basis. Mr. Van Kampen and Van Kampen & Crowe agreed
to these terms as they sent an updated PayPal invoice for the total agreed amount $500 “This is
the total owed, including the PayPal charges. ’ which Mr. and Mrs. Stevens paid in full
promptly.
19. Defendants received from Mr. Van Kampen or Van Kampen & Crowe
$500 per month PayPal invoices they continued to receive and paid on a monthly basis
from June 2017 until September 2017.
20. On July 14 th 2017, the administrative court denied all the motion to dismiss, motion
for a writ of mandamus, and motion to seal.
21. On July 17, 2017, Mrs. Stevens asked Birch Frost, Mr. Van Kampen’s legal assistant
if they had already exhausted the informal settlement procedure. Her inquiry was never
answered.
22. Nonetheless, in August and September, 2017, despite missing out on the informal
settlement procedure, Mr. Van Kampen asked Defendants to compile information to present as a
settlement to the assistant attorney general and Mr. Stevens talked for the first time with Mr. Van
Kampen on September 16, 2017 to discuss the case per Mr. Van Kampen request. No settlement
or official request for settlement was ever proposed on behalf of Defendants.
23. Thereafter, in late September 2017, communications between Mr. Van Kampen on
behalf of Van Kampen & Crowe and Defendants broke down. Mr. Van Kampen informed
Defendants that a payment plan of $500 a month was not enough to catch up their outstanding
attorney’s fees of about $30,000 with the need for an additional $30,000 to complete and take the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
case to trial and demanded to have a approximate demand amount of $60,000 paid to Van
Kampen & Crowe within 48 hours.
24. When Mr. Van Kampen and Van Kampen & Crowe did not receive the demand of
$60,000 within 48 hours, which was demanded for Friday October 6, 2017, for an alleged
payment of attorney’s fees and future attorney fees, they filed a notice of withdrawal on Monday,
October 9 th 2021. Defendants were not served with the other parties on the notice of withdrawal
and in fact did not receive notice of withdrawal until after it was approved and accepted from the
Presiding Officer. Defendants were denied by Mr. Van Kampen the opportunity to oppose the
withdrawal request to administrative court.
25. Mr. Van Kampen and Van Kampen & Crowe’s failure to properly file an ‘Answer
and Request for Settlement’ under RCW 34.05.060 of the administrative procedures act was
negligent in that they failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and learning expected of a
reasonably prudent attorney acting in the same or similar circumstances in the State of
Washington and they were therefore negligent.
26. Thereafter, Mr. Van Kampen and Van Kampen & Crowe retaliated against
Defendants and pursued this collection action against them for payment of attorney’s fees and
costs that are not owed, and he used a collection agency to pocket serve this complaint in
violation of RCW 19.16.250(27). The complaint also demanded interest of 12% in violation of
RCW 4.56.110(5) which only allows interest of 9% on consumer debt.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof on the Elements of its Breach of Contract Claim
According to the Washington Pattern Jury Instructions- Civil 6A Wash.
Prac., ash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 300.02 (7 TH ed), the Plaintiff has the burden of
proving that certain propositions on the breach of contract claim. Such include that the
defendants entered into a contract with the Plaintiff, what the material terms of the contract
included, that the Defendants breached the contract in one of the ways claimed by the Plaintiff,
that the Plaintiff was not in material breach of its own obligations under the contract, that any
condition precedent had occurred, and that the Plaintiff was damaged as a result of the
Defendants breach. WP1 302.02 also requires that the Plaintiff proves that they have maintained
their end of the bargain in the contract. Moreover, WP1 302.03 defines “material breach as a
breach serious enough to justify the abandonment of the contract. Moreover, James v Blazer, 39
Wn. 2d 277 defines material breach to mean the non-performance of a promise by one party to a
bilateral contract that is so material as to justify a refusal of the other party to perform
contractual duty. The Plaintiff has not discharged the preceding burden to prove the conditions of
breach of contract hence the allegations of breach against the Defendants should be dismissed.
In form of QUESTIONS TO PROVE:
i. Did the Defendants contract you to represent them in a Department of Health
Investigation and help to get it discharged in an expeditious manner that would not
result in much expense to them?
ii. Did Mr. Stevens inform you that he sought to resolve the aforesaid matter through
formal settlement conference?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
iii. Did the Defendants inform you that the allocated fee budget for your handling of the
administrative matter was $3,900.00?
iv. Did the Defendants inform you that the court-ordered deadline to file the Answer to
Statement of Charges and Request for Settlement & Hearing form was April 24,
2017?
v. Between May 2, 2017 and May 4, 2017, did you bill Defendants approximately
$3,500.00 in legal fees for services that were purportedly rendered as of March 31,
2017? And do you admit that the said amount sought to exhaust 90% of the
Defendants’ allocated fee budget within less than a month of hiring you?
vi. Did you submit two types of sets of billing books for 2017?
vii. Did you speak to the assistant attorney general assigned to the case, when Mr.
Stevens asked you about it?
viii. Did you submit the request for settlement form or paperwork with the answer on
the April 24 th 2017 deadline?
ix. Did the court issue an order indicating that you did not file a timely answer and did
not submit the request for formal settlement in due time?
x. Did you engage in any discussion with Defendants regarding the scope of
representation or the projected costs of the representation in the matter?
xi. Did the Defendants inform your office that they wanted the matter to process informal
settlement before it went through the hearing process?
xii. On March 8th 2017, did Defendants pay you a deposit of $2,000 from the sum of
$2,060 via PayPal?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
xiii. Did Defendants pay the balance on the remaining invoice in the sum of
$1,457.39?
xiv. Are you justified to pursue this action?
xv. To your knowledge, information, and belief, how were Defendants injured when the
case was ruled against them?
Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof on the Elements of an “Account Stated” Claim
In Shell Oil Co. v Litigation Fertilizer Chem. Co. 9 Wn. App. 596, 513 P. 2d
861 (1973), the elements of “account stated” were held to mean “to import to an account the
character of an account stated it must be mutually agreed between the parties that the balance
struck thereon is the correct amount due from the hone party to the other on the final adjustment
of their mutual dealings to which the account relates. The mere rendition of an account by one
party to another does not show an account stated. There must be some form of assent to the
account, that is, a definite acknowledgment of an indebtedness in a certain sum…. True, assent
may be implied from the circumstance and acts of the parties, but it must appear in some form.”
The Plaintiff contention that the Defendants assented to and acknowledged
indebtness of $43, 084.10 but has failed to provide summary judgment evidence of such assent
or acknowledgement by Defendants.
In form of QUESTIONS TO PROVE:
i. Did the Defendants inform you that the allocated fee budget for your handling of the
administrative matter was $3,900.00?
ii. On March 8th 2017, did the Defendants pay you a deposit of $2,000 from the sum of
$2,060 via PayPal?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
iii. And did the Defendants pay the balance on the remaining invoice in the sum of
$1,457.39?
iv. Did the Defendants dispute the reasonableness of approximately $3,500.00 in legal
fees for services that were purportedly rendered as of March 31, 2017, since it
amounted to exhausting 90% of the Defendants allocated fee budget within less than a
month of hiring you
v. Did Defendants made it very clear that they could not afford legal services from you
that cost more than $500.00 a month?
vi. Did the Defendants inform you that any services above $500 a month would be done
on a pro bono basis?
vii. Did you agree to the foregoing terms, and did you send Defendants an updated PayPal
invoice for the total agreed amount $500 from June to September 2017?
viii. Did the Defendants agree, give their assent, or pay the amount requested in your
demand for attorney’s fees of about $30,000 with the need for an additional $30,000
to complete and take the case to trial?
Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof on the Elements of a “Money Due on Account” Claim
The Defendants rely on 1 Am. Ur. 2d Accounts & Accounting Section 26 (West
20070 to set forth the elements of money due on account claim. The elements are prior
transactions between parties in a debtor-creditor relationship, an express or implied agreement
between the parties on amount owing, and an express or implied promise from the debtor to
settle the amount. The Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment thus fails since there lacks any
genuine issue of material fact on the “amount due”.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
In form of QUESTIONS TO PROVE:
i. Did the Defendants inform you that the allocated fee budget for your handling of the
administrative matter was $3,900.00?
ii. On March 8th 2017, did the Defendants pay you a deposit of $2,000 from the sum of
$2,060 via PayPal?
iii. And did the Defendants pay the balance on the remaining invoice in the sum of
$1,457.39?
iv. Did the Defendants give any promise, or enter any agreement to pay you any amount
beyond the agreed $3,900.00?
v. Did the Defendants agree, give their assent, or pay the amount requested in your
demand for attorney’s fees of about $30,000 with the need for an additional $30,000
to complete and take the case to trial?
Plaintiff’s Motion on All of its Claims Should be Denied upon Failure to Mitigate Damages
As per 6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WP 303.06 (7the ed.),
a Plaintiff who sustains damage as a result of the Defendant’s breach of contract has a duty to
minimize the loss suffered by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is thus not entitled to recover for any
part of the loss that Plaintiff could have avoided with reasonable efforts. The Defendants
informed the Plaintiff on the legal budget od services to be rendered by the Plaintiff to Mr.
Steven’s administrative proceedings. However, the Plaintiff still exorbitantly billed the
Defendants for legal services.
In form of QUESTIONS TO PROVE:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
i. Did the Defendants inform you that the allocated fee budget for your handling of the
administrative matter was $3,900.00?
ii. Did the Defendants give any promise, or enter any agreement to pay you any amount
beyond the agreed $3,900.00?
iii. Did you limit your bills to the cap stated by Defendants?
iv. Did the Defendants agree, give their assent, or pay the amount requested in your
demand for attorney’s fees of about $30,000 with the need for an additional $30,000
to complete and take the case to trial?
v. Did you engage in any discussion with Defendants regarding the scope of
representation or the projected costs of the representation in the matter?
The Plaintiff’s hands are Tainted with Illegalities
In Columbia Community Bank v Newman Park, LLC, 304 P. 3d 472 177 Wash.
2d 566 (2013), the Supreme Court of Washington referred to Credit Bureau Corp v Beckstead,
63 Wash. 2d 183, 186, 385 P. 2d 864 (1963) and People’s Sav Bank v Bufford, 90 Wash. 204,
208, 155 P. 1068 (1916), and stated as follows: “From ancient times, the first maxim in equity
has been that one who seeks equity must do equity. Of similarly ancient provenance is the
requirement that those who come to equity must come with clean hands.” It is thus untenable for
the Plaintiff to claim that the Defendants did not pay Mr. Van Kampen’s legal fees, yet he did
not follow instructions issued by the Defendants or honor the terms of the contract between the
Plaintiff and Defendants, or meet timely filing deadlines.
In form of QUESTIONS TO PROVE:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
i. Did you seek to resolve the matter through formal settlement conference, as requested
by Defendants?
ii. Did you meet the April 24, 2017deadline to file the Answer to Statement of Charges
and Request for Settlement & Hearing form?
iii. Did you speak to the assistant attorney general assigned to the case, when requested
by Defendants?
iv. Did you protect the Defendants’ health information and other confidential
documents?
v. On June 2, 2017, did you include with the filed Answer the required Request for
Settlement which was the instructions that identified the official way to request for
settlement under RCW 34.05.060 and WAC 246-10-401 of the Administrative
Procedures Act?
vi. Did you exhaust the informal settlement procedure?
vii. Did you serve the Defendants the Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel?
Plaintiff Has Come to Court with Unclean Hands
1. “It is one of the fundamental principles upon which equity jurisprudence is
founded, that before a complainant can have a standing in court he must show that not only has
he a good and meritorious cause of action, but he must come to court with clean hands. He must
be frank and fair with the court, nothing about the case under consideration should be guarded,
but everything that tends to a full and fair determination of the matters in controversy should be
placed before the court. The complainant ought not to be the transgressor himself, and then
complain that by chance he has been injured on account of his own wrongful misconduct. When,
as is sometimes the fact, the original wrongdoer is the party who sustains the greater injury by
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
reason of his inequitable scheme or plan, he ought to bear the burden and consequences of his
own folly, and the equity court will not lend him its jurisdiction to right a wrong of which he
himself is the author. Equity leaves the parties in pari delicto to fight out their own salvation and
remedy their own wrongs in the law court. Equity will not assume jurisdiction where both parties
are in the wrong. The purpose of equity is to afford to the complainant a full, complete, and
adequate remedy, and it will not undertake to balance the equities between the parties when they
are both in the wrong, nor give the complainant relief against his own vice and folly.” J.L.
Cooper Company v. Anchor Securities Company, 9 Wn. 2d 45 (Wash. 1941).
2. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit despite his breach of fiduciary duty and negligence
described above. Plaintiff disregarded Defendants’ instructions to settle and proceeded to litigate
and file motions on his own volition. As an attorney, Van Kampen knows that he should always
act in the best interests of his client(s) and follow their instructions. He knew what he was doing
when he continued litigating and filed the frivolous motions. He wanted to add more billable
hours.
3. Further, he has filed this lawsuit to attempt to collect on the services he rendered
without authorization from Defendants. His actions amount to unclean hands. It would be
improper to award judgment to Plaintiff despite his actions described above which he wants to
unfairly benefit from.
In FORM of QUESTIONS TO PROVE:
i. Did you seek to resolve the matter through formal settlement conference, as requested
by Defendants?
ii. Did you meet the April 24, 2017deadline to file the Answer to Statement of Charges
and Request for Settlement & Hearing form?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
iii. Did you speak to the assistant attorney general assigned to the case, when requested
by Defendants?
iv. Did you protect the Defendants’ health information and other confidential
documents?
v. On June 2, 2017, did you include with the filed Answer the required Request for
Settlement which was the instructions that identified the official way to request for
settlement under RCW 34.05.060 and WAC 246-10-401 of the Administrative
Procedures Act?
vi. Did you exhaust the informal settlement procedure?
vii. Did you serve the Defendants the Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel?
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
4. In a fiduciary relationship one party "occupies such a relation to the other party as
to justify the latter in expecting that his interests will be cared for….’" Liebergesell v. Evans, 93
Wash.2d 881, 889-90, 613 P.2d 1170 (1980) (quoting RESTATEMENT OF CONTRACTS §
472(1)(c) (1932)).
5. The fiduciary duties arising from an attorney-client relationship are generally
categorized as involving the duty of preserving confidences and of individual loyalty. Mallen, 2
Legal Malpractice § 15:1 (2017 ed.).
6. While hiring the services of Mr. Van Kampen via Van Kampen & Crowe,
Defendants expected him to represent them properly and act in their best interests.
7. Breach of a fiduciary duty imposes liability in tort. The plaintiff must prove (1)
existence of a duty owed, (2) breach of that duty, (3) resulting injury, and (4) that the claimed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
breach proximately caused the injury. Miller v. U.S. Bank of Wash., 72 Wash.App. 416, 426, 865
P.2d 536 (1994).
8. Courts in Washington have deemed a fiduciary relationship to exist between an
attorney and a client. "an attorney must continually be aware that the attorney-client relationship
is a fiduciary one as a matter of law and thus the attorney owes the highest duty to the
client." Perez v. Pappas, 98 Wash.2d 835, 840-41, 659 P.2d 475 (1983) (citing Liebergesell v.
Evans, 93 Wash.2d 881, 890, 613 P.2d 1170 (1980); McCutcheon v. Brownfield, 2 Wash.App.
348, 356-57, 467 P.2d 868, review denied, 78 Wash.2d 993 (1970)).
9. Courts in Washington have deemed acts by attorneys such as improper
modification of a fee agreement after representation has began, over-billing of clients and failure
to perform competently to constitute breach of fiduciary duty owed by the attorney to the client.
Cotton v. Kronenberg, 111 Wn.App. 258, 44 P.3d 878 (2002); see also Ward v. Richards &
Rossano, Inc., 51 Wn.App. 423, 434, 754 P.2d 120 (1988) (court noted that improper fee
modification could constitute a breach of fiduciary duty, although factual issues precluded a
summary judgment on this issue); In re Dann, 136 Wn.2d 67, 960 P.2d 416 (1998); and Hansen
v. Wightman, 14 Wn.App. 78, 538 P.2d 1238 (1975).
10. Mr. Van Kampen, Plaintiff, intentionally increased representation fees after all
parties had agreed that Defendants would pay only a capped limited amount of $500 per month
for services rendered by Mr. Van Kampen on behalf of Plaintiff. Out of nowhere, Mr. Van
Kampen sent Defendants a notice demanding that they pay a sum of $60,000 within 48 hours,
otherwise Plaintiff would withdraw its legal services to Defendants. Defendants did not send the
$60,000 and reminded Mr. Van Kampen that they agreed to cap services provided at $500 per
month.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
11. When Defendants failed to pay the amount Plaintiff was extorting from them,
Mr. Van Kampen proceeded and filed a notice of withdrawal at the administrative court.
Defendants were not even served with proper notice so they could oppose it.
12. Once the attorney-client relationship is established, any modification of the fee
arrangement becomes subject to the fiduciary obligations and the well-established presumptions.
The courts have generally given particular attention and scrutiny to fee contracts made or altered
during the attorney-client relationship. Perez v. Pappas, 659 P. 2d 475 (1983). The unilateral
modification of the fee arrangement between by Defendants and Plaintiff by Mr. Van Kampen
for $60,000 on behalf of Plaintiff, which included an additional demand for advance fees not
identified in the agreement, should be scrutinized and critically analyzed by the court. It was
untenable for Mr. Van Kampen to abruptly require Defendants to pay $60,000 within 48 hours
otherwise he would have withdrawn representation, which he did. Mr. Van Kampen did not give
any substantial reason for the above increase in payments or a reason why he didn’t indicate
before the agreement that Plaintiff would require more monies to represent Defendants.
13. If a renegotiation after commencement of the attorney-client relationship results
in greater compensation for the attorney than that under the initial agreement, courts may refuse
to enforce the renegotiated fee unless it is supported by new consideration. Perez, 98 Wash.2d at
841, 659 P.2d 475. Defendants request this Court to refuse to enforce the fee of $60,000 that was
unfairly imposed by Plaintiff. As a matter of fact, there was no renegotiation. Plaintiff
unilaterally decided to increase the fees payable to it without consulting Defendants to know and
understand whether they would be able to pay.
14. Once the breach of a fiduciary duty has been established, the plaintiff must prove
the damage resulting from the breach. Smith v. Pacific Pools, Inc., supra; see Leppaluoto v.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
Eggleston, supra at 405. The precise amount of damages need not be shown with mathematical
certainty. Haner v. Quincy Farm Chems., Inc., 29 Wn. App. 93, 97, 627 P.2d 571
(1981), aff’d, 97 Wn.2d 753, 649 P.2d 828 (1982). Damages must be supported by competent
evidence in the record, Hyde v. Wellpinit Sch. Dist. 49, 32 Wn. App. 465, 470, 648 P.2d 892
(1982); however, evidence of damage is sufficient if it affords a reasonable basis for estimating
the loss and does not subject the trier of fact to mere speculation or conjecture. Haner v. Quincy
Farm Chems., Inc., supra at 98.
15. Mr. Van Kampen’s actions fell below the standard required for a reasonable
attorney. He was instructed by Defendants to settle so as to reduce the expenses of litigation.
However, Mr. Van Kampen missed deadlines for filing the required paperwork. Instead, he filed
frivolous motions that were all dismissed by the administrative court and even wanted to proceed
to trial against the instructions issued by Defendants.
16. As a result of the breach of duty described above, Plaintiffs lost the chance to
settle. They were left stranded with the case at the administrative court and had to continue pro
se at the time.
17. Plaintiff is liable for breach of fiduciary duty and ought to pay damages to
Defendants.
In the FORM OF QUESTIONS TO PROVE:
i. Did the Defendants contract you to represent them in a Department of Health
Investigation and help to get it discharged in an expeditious manner that would not
result in much expense to them?
ii. Did Mr. Stevens inform you that he sought to resolve the aforesaid matter through
formal settlement conference?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
iii. Did the Defendants inform you that the allocated fee budget for your handling of the
administrative matter was $3,900.00?
iv. Did the Defendants inform you that the court-ordered deadline to file the Answer to
Statement of Charges and Request for Settlement & Hearing form was April 24,
2017?
v. Did you seek to resolve the matter through formal settlement conference, as requested
by Defendants?
vi. Did you meet the April 24, 2017deadline to file the Answer to Statement of Charges
and Request for Settlement & Hearing form?
vii. Did you speak to the assistant attorney general assigned to the case, when requested
by Defendants?
viii. Did you protect the Defendants’ health information and other confidential
documents?
ix. On June 2, 2017, did you include with the filed Answer the required Request for
Settlement which was the instructions that identified the official way to request for
settlement under RCW 34.05.060 and WAC 246-10-401 of the Administrative
Procedures Act?
x. Did you exhaust the informal settlement procedure?
xi. Did you serve the Defendants the Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel?
xii. Between May 2, 2017 and May 4, 2017, did you bill Defendants approximately
$3,500.00 in legal fees for services that were purportedly rendered as of March 31,
2017? And do you admit that the said amount sought to exhaust 90% of the
Defendants’ allocated fee budget within less than a month of hiring you?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
xiii. Did you submit two types of sets of billing books for 2017?
xiv. Did you protect the Defendants’ health information and other confidential
documents?
xv. Did you limit your bills to the cap stated by Defendants?
Negligence-Based Legal Malpractice
18. The elements of a negligence-based legal malpractice action are: duty of care,
breach of the duty, proximate cause, and damages. Hizey v. Carpenter, 119 Wn. 2d 251, 261, 830
P.2d 646 (1987); Stangland v. Brock, 109 Wn. 2d 675, 682, 747 P.2d 464 (1987).
19. Accordingly, the claimant must show: (1) the existence of an attorney-client
relationship giving rise to a duty of care on the part of the lawyer; (2) an act or omission
breaching that duty of care; (3) damage to the client; and (4) the breach of duty must have been a
proximate cause of the damage to the client. De Wolf, 29 Washington Practice, Washington
Elements of an Action § 17:1 (2016-2017 ed.).
20. There existed an attorney-client relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants
which was formed when Defendants contracted Plaintiff’s legal services. Plaintiff agreed to
represent Jason Stevens in a matter before the State of Washington Department of Health.
21. The attorney-client relationship gave rise to a duty of care owed by Plaintiff to
Defendants. Plaintiff owed Defendants a duty of care to represent Jason Stevens effectively
before the Department of Health. Part of that duty entailed following Defendants’ instructions
and acting in Jason Stevens’ best interest at all times.
22. Plaintiff breached that duty when he failed to follow Defendants’ instructions and
settle the matter as quickly as possible as Defendants could not afford to litigate further.
23. In blatant disregard for Defendants’ instructions, Plaintiff continued to litigate and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
even filed more motions, against Defendants’ instructions. The motions that Plaintiff filed were
frivolous and were subsequently dismissed by the Department.
24. As a result of Plaintiff’s failure to follow Defendants’ instructions and settle, and
filing of frivolous motions, the Department ruled against Jason Stevens. Judgment has been
entered against him and he now has to appeal the determination of the Department.
25. Had Plaintiff followed Defendants’ instructions to settle instead of filing frivolous
motions, judgment would not have been entered against Jason Stevens as the settlement would
have concluded the matter.
In the FORM OF QUESTIONS TO PROVE:
i. Did the Defendants contract you to represent them in a Department of Health
Investigation and help to get it discharged in an expeditious manner that would not
result in much expense to them?
ii. Did Mr. Stevens inform you that he sought to resolve the aforesaid matter through
formal settlement conference?
iii. Did the Defendants inform you that the allocated fee budget for your handling of the
administrative matter was $3,900.00?
iv. Did the Defendants inform you that the court-ordered deadline to file the Answer to
Statement of Charges and Request for Settlement & Hearing form was April 24,
2017?
v. Did you follow Defendants’ instructions and act in Defendants’ best interest at all
times?
vi. Between May 2, 2017 and May 4, 2017, did you bill Defendants approximately
$3,500.00 in legal fees for services that were purportedly rendered as of March 31,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
QUESTIONS TRIAL – WORKSHEET
2017? And do you admit that the said amount sought to exhaust 90% of the
Defendants’ allocated fee budget within less than a month of hiring you?
vii. Did you submit two types of sets of billing books for 2017?
viii. Did you speak to the assistant attorney general assigned to the case, when Mr.
Stevens asked you about it?
ix. Did you submit the request for settlement form or paperwork with the answer on the
April 24 th 2017 deadline?
x. Did the court issue an order indicating that you did not file a timely answer and did
not submit the request for formal settlement in due time?
xi. Did you engage in any discussion with Defendants regarding the scope of
representation or the projected costs of the representation in the matter?
xii. Did the Defendants inform your office that they wanted the matter to process informal
settlement before it went through the hearing process?
xiii. On March 8th 2017, did Defendants pay you a deposit of $2,000 from the sum of
$2,060 via PayPal?
xiv. Did Defendants pay the balance on the remaining invoice in the sum of
$1,457.39?
xv. Are you justified to pursue this action?
xvi. To your knowledge, information, and belief, how were Defendants injured when
the case was ruled against them?
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )