Tri-Cities lawyer suspended for ‘pattern of misconduct’ involving an elderly client

A longtime Kennewick lawyer is suspended for three years for misconduct stemming from a guardianship case that started in 2013.

John C. Bolliger was found to have violated several Rules of Professional Conduct when he continued to represent a dementia-stricken man, even after a judge appointed a different attorney and ordered Bolliger to stay away from the case.

Then, when the elderly man died, Bolliger tried to get himself appointed personal representative of the estate and filed a newer will, knowing it already had been invalidated by the court.

Bolliger could have fought the disciplinary action before the Washington State Bar Association’s Disciplinary Board by requesting a hearing. However, he agreed to the action, which went into effect July 9.

He could not be reached about the decision.

The stipulated order says Bolliger had formulated a retirement plan seven years ago to take effect Dec. 31, 2018.

He already sold his Clearwater Avenue law practice, changed his licensing status to inactive and was effectively retired from the practice of law, the order says.

The disciplinary board had decided at its April meeting to suspend Bolliger for two years. But the following month, the board concluded that the initial stipulation “would result in a manifest injustice given the pattern of misconduct.”

The final order for three years was signed by the Washington state Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Mary Fairhurst.

If Bolliger wants to be reinstated after the 36 months are up, he would have to follow several conditions including being on probation for two years.

Bolliger was first admitted to practice law in California and Idaho in 1992, then in Washington state in 1996. He has no prior disciplinary action.

He unsuccessfully sought a judicial position on the Benton-Franklin Superior Court bench at least three times, first in the 2000 election and twice by appointment in 2003 and 2004.

Client with dementia

The disciplinary order for his suspension shows that Bolliger first met with the elderly client in July 2013 to draft new estate planning documents.

The man, who was suffering from dementia and living in an assisted-living home, had been taken to Bolliger’s office by a longtime friend.

The client’s stepson had been his power of attorney for financial and medical matters for at least five years.

However, Bolliger prepared documents making himself the power of attorney for both financial and health care decisions. The client signed the documents.

Days later, Tri-Cities attorney Shea Meehan who represented he elderly man’s stepson filed a vulnerable adult protection order, trying to prohibit other people from interfering with the man’s legal and financial matters.

He also filed a petition for guardianship for the elderly man, and asked a Superior Court judge to declare that the estate planning documents prepared by Bolliger were void because of the client’s “lack of capacity to execute them.”

Guardianship action

A judge immediately appointed a guardian ad litem, who is an independent advocate to act in the elderly man’s best interests, and later a different lawyer to represent him in the guardianship action.

The judge also signed the protection order, and confirmed the original power of attorney making the man’s stepson responsible for his health care. The guardian ad litem was told to take control of the man’s finances.

In spite of all that, Bolliger still drafted a new last will and testament for the elderly man and had him sign it. The document named Bolliger as personal representative of the estate.

He then tried to block release of information in his client file to the court-appointed lawyer, saying it was protected by attorney-client privilege. He also wrote a letter directly to Judge Bruce Spanner, who had appointed the guardian and the lawyer.

Bolliger continued to represent himself as the elderly man’s attorney, serving subpoenas on financial institutions to get copies of the man’s account records.

Bolliger told to stay away

Meehan responded with a vulnerable adult protection order petition against Bolliger, trying to keep him away from the elderly man.

A judge granted the request, telling Bolliger to have no contact with the man for five years, not to interfere with his health care, financial or legal matters, and to stop filing court documents on his behalf.

In January 2014, Bolliger filed a notice of appeal with the Washington state Court of Appeals in Spokane. He wanted the judges to review the guardianship orders.

The elderly man died in November 2015, and his guardianship case was transferred to a probate action. The court entered orders admitting his 2008 will.

Then in May 2016, Bolliger filed a petition to be appointed personal representative of the man’s estate and attached a copy of the 2013 will he had drafted.

He did not disclose in the petition that a judge had invalidated that will.

The court appointed Bolliger as representative, unaware of the earlier action. But Meehan quickly notified the court about the mistake, and the order was vacated.

‘Acts of ... financial exploitation’

Then in July 2016, the Court of Appeals issued two decisions related to Bolliger’s appeal.

In one, the judges said the elderly man was in fact a vulnerable adult and Bolliger “had committed acts of abandonment, abuse, neglect, and/or financial exploitation.”

The state bar’s disciplinary board found that Bolliger violated several Rules of Professional Conduct based on his actions surrounding the elderly man’s matters over the course of three years.

The board determined that he acted knowingly in committing the misconduct, and that it included the aggravating factors of multiple offenses, vulnerability of victim and substantial experience in the practice of law.

This story was originally published July 31, 2019 at 12:46 PM.