1
County, Washington
8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY
24 1.1 Plaintiff Sandra S. Noreen (Hereinafter "Noreen") is a single woman residing in Kin 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 ) ) ) ) ) ) MICHAEL W. BUGNI, individually and the ) 13 marital community composed of MICHAEL W. )) 14 Bugni and JANE DOE BUGNI; and MICHAEL W.
Bugni &ASSOC. PLLC, a Professional Limited ~
15 Liability Company, ) ) ) SANDRA S. NOREEN, 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 16 Defendants. No.
COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL
MALPRACTICE & DETERMINATION OF LEGAL FEES, JUDGMENT FOR
DAMAGES AND FOR SANCTIONS FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES.
20
COMES NOW the plaintiff by and through her attorney, Roger K. Anderson, and states her 17 18 19 21 claims as follows: 22
I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 23 25 26 COMPLAINT - 1 9888070lpldglcomplaint.doc Law Offices ROGER K. ANDERSON
316 Occidental Ave. S., Ste. 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.499.1831 (D) 206.340.1314(0)
FILED
14 MAY 16 AM 11:07KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
E-FILED
3 County, Washington.
1.2 Defendant, Michael W Bugni, PLLC (hereinafter "Bugni") is a Washington Professiona 1
2 Limited Liability Company, engaged in the practice of law, with its principal place of business in Kin
4 1.3 Defendant Michael W. Bugni, (hereinafter "Bugni") is a lawyer licensed to practice law i 5 the State of Washington. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, defendant Bugni was 6 partner in the defendant law firm of Michael W. Bugni & Assoc. PLLC, and was employed by that la 7
firm as an attorney doing business in King County Washington. All of defendant Michael W. Bugni' 8
actions complained of herein were done in the course and scope of his employment with, and hi 9
10
partnership in, the defendant law firm, Michael W. Bugni, & Assoc. PLLC. In addition, all of defendan Bugni's actions complained of herein were done for the benefit and furtherance of his marita 11
12 community, composed of himself and Jane Doe Bugni.
13
II.
FACTS14
15 2.1 At all times relevant hereto, the defendant Bugni represented plaintiff Noreen as her 16
attorney in a marital dissolution action in King County Superior Court in the State of Washington. The 17
action was styled as: In re the Marriage of Sandra Noreen, Petitioner, and Eric W Noreen, 18
Respondent. Cause No. 11-3-0806-9 SEA. The matter was arbitrated by Howard Bartlett and ultimately
19
settled
20
21 2.2 Defendants Bugni negligently represented Noreen in the above action by, inter alia: 22 2.2(a) negligently failing to submit to the arbitrator an appraisal on the Sander Heritage 23 property prepared by property appraisers Lamb, Lamb & Hanson which indicated a significantly lower 24 value of the property than the obsolete tax assessor's number defendant submitted. As a result, the 25 property division included the higher number causing substantial damage to plaintiff. No other appraisal
26
COMPLAINT - 2
9888070\pldg\complaint.doc
Law Offices
ROGER K. ANDERSON
316 Occidental Ave. S., Ste. 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.499.1831(0) 206.340.1314(0)
1
of the property had been ordered by either side. Had Mr. Bugni produced the appraisal prior to the start of the Arbitration, the correct and lower value would have been on the CR2A and there would not have
2"
311
been an issue in the real estate value for settlement purposes ofthe Sander Heritage property. .2.2(b) negligently failing to submit the correct value on property known as 904 21stAve.
4
5 II East for entry on the CR2A notwithstanding the fact that defendant had in his possession an appraisal on 6 the property prepared by Lamb, Lamb & Hanson. Once again plaintiff Noreen pointed out the error to 7 defendant and was told by him "he would take care of it". Subsequently defendant admitted he had, on 8 his own volition, "rounded the value down" by $30,000.00, to which plaintiff sharply objected. At a 9
later arbitration defendant Bugni indicated that the amount was incorrect due to a"typo" and asked that 10
it be corrected. This request was denied by the arbitrator. 11
2.2( c) negligently failing to submit or even understand how to submit language for 12
1311 inclusion in the Decree relating to the complex issues of division of past, present and future royalties 14 IIearned by plaintiff's husband for his authorship, in whole or in part, of text books and related material 15II As a result, plaintiff was forced to engage separate counsel with the firm of Lasher Holzapfel Sperry & 16 Ebberson who understood the royalty issues and proposed proper language regarding the royalty issues 17 and other matters not addressed by defendant. As a result, plaintiff incurred additional attorneys' fees 18 that would not have been necessary, but for defendant's negligence.
19
2.3 Defendant Bugni, despite repeated requests, failed and refused to pay to plaintiff funds
20
held in his trust account which were the property of plaintiff Noreen in violation ofRPC 1.15A(f).
21
2.4 Defendant Bugni charged plaintiff significant legal fees despite the fact that his work was
22
2311 often flawed and had to be corrected on numerous occasions, Mr. Bugni did not understand information
24 IIprovided him regarding the Defined Benefit Plan, its execution, as well as Ms. Noreen's IRS roll over 25 II retirement, missed deadlines, and often seemed to have "forgotten" work he was to accomplish and
26
Law Offices
ROGER K.ANDERSON
316 Occidental Ave. S., Ste. 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.499.1831(0) 206.340.1314(0)
COMPLAINT - 3
1
documents he was to produce. Due to defendant Bugni' s errors, omissions, and duplications, the attorneys' charged to plaintiff Noreen were excessive.
2 3 4 5 6 7
III.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF - LEGAL MALPRACTICE
LEGAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
-
DUTY
3.1 At all times material hereto there existed an attorney/client relationship between th 8 plaintiff Noreen and, the defendant attorney and law firm, Bugni.
9 3.2 At all times material hereto, the defendants owed the plaintiff a duty to exercise tha 10 degree of care, skill, diligence and knowledge, commonly possessed and exercised by a reasonable 11 careful and prudent lawyer in the practice of law in the State of Washington, said duty arising out of th 12 attorney/client relationship between them.
13 3.3 At all times material hereto, the defendant law firm and the defendant attorney owed 14 plaintiff fiduciary duties in law and in fact arising out of the attorney/client relationship between them. 15
3.4 By engaging the defendant law firm and defendant attorney the plaintiff entered into a 16 contract with them whereby the plaintiff was to pay a fee and the defendants were to properly represent 17 plaintiff and to timely advise it in all respects related to the above mentioned dissolution action.
18 19 20 21 22
23
24IV.
PLAINTIFF'S SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FORFEITUREIDISGORGEMENT
OF FEES FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
4.1 Plaintiff re-alleges each of the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint and incorporates them into this claim for relief as if set forth in full herein.
4.2 Professional misconduct by an attorney may be a basis for denying or disgorging fees. A 25 court has discretion to order forfeiture and/or disgorgement of fees for attorney misconduct. The
26
COMPLAINT - 4
9888070lpldglcomplaint.doc
Law Offices
ROGER K. ANDERSON
316 Occidental Ave. S., Ste. 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.499.1831 (D) 206.340.1314(0)
1
5.5 Under RPC 1.5(a), and RCW 4.25.005, once the court should determine what fees are
purpose of disgorgement is not predicated on the concept of reducing an unreasonable fee to a
reasonable level, but rather seeks to discipline specific breaches of professional responsibility and to
2
3 deter future misconduct.
4
4.3 Defendant Bugni has committed violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct
5
toward his client, plaintiff Noreen. These include, but are not limited to failing to remit client funds from
6 defendants' trust account despite numerous requests from plaintiff, in violation of RPC 1.15(A)(f)
7
v.
PLAINTIFF'S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
8
9 DETERMINATION OF REASONABLENESS OF ATTORNEY'S FEES UNDER
QUANTUM MERUIT
10
11 5.1 Plaintiff re-alleges each of the foregoing paragraphs of this complaint and incorporates
12 them into this claim for relief as if set forth in full herein.
13 5.2 Defendant's Bugni' s remedy for compensation is under the doctrine of Quantum Meruit
14 5.3 Under the doctrine of Quantum Meruit, plaintiff Noreen is entitled to a determination of
15
the reasonableness of defendant Bugni's fees pursuant to RPC 1.5 and pursuant to RCW 4.24.005.
16
Under such circumstances, defendant Bugni bears the burden of proof. 17
18
reasonable for the services performed by defendant Bugni and order that defendant Bugni reimburse to 19
20 plaintiff Noreen any inappropriate or excessive attorney's fees.
21
VI.
PROXIMATE CAUSE AND DAMAGE 22
23
24 6.1 As a direct and proximate cause of one or more of defendants' breach( es) of one or mor
25 of the aforesaid duties andlor obligations, plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
26
COMPLAINT - 5 9888070\pJdglcompJaintdoc Law Offices ROGER K. ANDERSON 316 Occidental Ave. S., Ste. 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.499.1831 (D) 206.340.1314(0)2
For prejudgment interest, where appropriate; and
1 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants, as follows:
1.
For an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than the amounts plaintiff lost as resul
3 of failure to use correct and available appraisal of marital property and attorneys' fees paid t
4 independent counsel to correct defendant's handling of royalty issues, caused by one or more breach(es
5 of one or more of the aforesaid duties owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; and
2. For a determination that the defendant has violated Rules of Professional Conduct, an
6
7 that such conduct constitutes breaches of fiduciary duties to the plaintiff, requiring disgorgement of fees'
8 and
3. For a determination of reasonable attorney's fees charged to plaintiff Noreen b
9
defendant Bugni and for disgorgement of all attorney's fees received by defendant in excess 0
10
11 reasonable fees; and;
4.
12
5.13
action;14
6.15
For attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the plaintiff as a result of having to bring thi
For such other and further relief as may seem proper to the court
16
t4
-Dated this It;.day of
1174
-
Y
,2014 1718 By~~~~+- _
Roger
WSB # 6069
Attorney for Plaintiff 19 20
21
2223
24
25
26
Law Offices ROGER K. ANDERSON316 Occidental Ave. S., Ste. 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.499.1831 (D) 206.340.1314(0) COMPLAINT - 6
1
2
3 VERIFICATION
4 5
Sandra S.Noreen, under penalties of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declares and certifies as follows:
6
7 I am the Plaintiff herein. I have read the foregoing Complaint, know the contents thereof, 8 believe the same to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
9
DATED AND SIGNED at_King County, Burien, Washington this
is"
day of May 2014. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920
2122
23
24
25
26 Law Offices ROGER K. ANDERSON316 Occidental Ave. S., Ste. 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.499.1831(0) 206.340.1314(0)
COMPLAINT - 07
