James Byron Holcomb is a lawyer in Bainbridge Island licensed with Washington State Bar Association (WSBA). The license number is #1695. The practice address is PO Box 10069, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-0069. The business phone number is (206) 842-8429. The license type is Lawyer. The license status is Deceased. The admitted date is September 22, 1967.
| WSBA Number | 1695 |
| Full Name | James Byron Holcomb |
| Last Name | Holcomb |
| First Name | James Byron |
| Address | PO Box 10069 Bainbridge Island WA 98110-0069 |
| Phone | (206) 842-8429 |
| Fax | (206) 842-8429 |
| bylaw(a)aol.com | |
| License Type | Lawyer |
| Admit Date | 1967-09-22 |
| License Status | Deceased |
| Eligible To Practice | No |
| Firm Size | Solo practice |
| Practice Areas | Government, Military |
| Other Languages Spoken | None Specified |
| Disciplinary History | Suspension (12/20/2007) Suspension (06/21/2008) |
| Action | Effective Date | RPC | Discipline Notice | Discipline Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suspension | 6/21/2008 | 1.16 -
Declining or Terminating Representation
1.4 - Communication 3.1 - Meritorious Claims and Contentions 5.5 - Unauthorized Practice of Law 5.8 - Misconduct Involving Disbarred, Suspended, Resigned, or Inactive Lawyers 8.4 (d) - Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice 8.4 (j) - Disobey Court Order 8.4 (l) - Violate ELCs | James Byron Holcomb (WSBA No. 1695, admitted 1967), of Bainbridge Island, was suspended for three years, effective June 21, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following approval of a stipulation. This discipline resulted from conduct in three matters involving failure to communicate, representation of clients in violation of the Rules, filing frivolous proceedings, practicing law while suspended, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, disobeying a court order, and violations of duties in connection with a disciplinary matter. Matter No. 1: On December 20, 2007, the Supreme Court suspended Mr. Holcomb from the practice of law for six months, effective immediately. Mr. Holcomb knew of the suspension and filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Suspension on January 3, 2008, which was denied. Prior to his suspension, Mr. Holcomb had filed a Notice of Appearance for Client A, who was charged with DUI in a district court matter. After being suspended, Mr. Holcomb did not advise Client A, the court, or opposing counsel of his suspension and did not withdraw from representing Client A. Mr. Holcomb appeared with Client A in court on January 7, 2008, to request a continuance in Client A’s matter, and on February 4, 2008, to enter a pre-trial diversion agreement. The presiding judge later discovered that Mr. Holcomb was suspended from the practice of law. The judge summoned Client A back to court to meet with another attorney and decide if he wished to continue with the diversion agreement, which the client later reaffirmed. Matter No. 2: In 2006, prior to his suspension, Mr. Holcomb began representing Client B, who was charged with DUI in a district court matter. After being suspended, Mr. Holcomb did not notify Client B, the court, or opposing counsel of his suspension and did not withdraw from representing Client B. Mr. Holcomb appeared in court with Client B on February 5, 2008, when Client B entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge. Mr. Holcomb also requested continuances of the sentencing date on Client B’s behalf and represented Client B in court at his sentencing on June 19, 2008. Matter No. 3: Client C hired Mr. Holcomb to represent him in appealing to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) his removal from a position with a federal employer. Mr. Holcomb filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Client C on April 25, 2006. The appeal went to hearing before an administrative judge (AJ). On October 10, 2006, prior to a decision being made, Mr. Holcomb filed a Motion to Supplement Argument on Appeal, asserting that Client C had a mentally handicapping condition that rendered him incompetent to withdraw the appeal, and asked the AJ to order a mental evaluation. On that same date, Client C notified the AJ and Mr. Holcomb by letter that he wished to withdraw his appeal so that he could pursue his claim through arbitration. Client C also notified the AJ and Mr. Holcomb that he had terminated Mr. Holcomb’s representation. The AJ denied Mr. Holcomb’s motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that Client C was acting knowingly and voluntarily when he requested dismissal of his appeal. Client C settled his claim with the federal employer, but did not advise the MSPB or Mr. Holcomb of the settlement. Mr. Holcomb filed a petition for review of the AJ’s decision with the MSPB, claiming to act on behalf of Client C, and again asserting that Client C had a mentally handicapping condition that rendered him incompetent to withdraw the appeal and asking the MSPB to order a mental evaluation. Client C had not re-authorized Mr. Holcomb to act on his behalf. The Clerk of the MSPB entered an order to show cause directed to Client C stating that the Board would not accept the petition for review unless it received within 15 days a “Designation of Representation” signed by Client C indicating that he had once again designated Mr. Holcomb as his representative. Client C did not respond to the order and the MSPB dismissed Mr. Holcomb’s petition for review. Mr. Holcomb filed a petition for review of the MSPB’s dismissal in the U.S. Court of Appeals, stating in the petition that he was representing Client C even though Client C had not authorized him to file the petition for review. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because Mr. Holcomb failed to demonstrate that he was Client C’s representative. The Court of Appeals ordered Mr. Holcomb to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal. Mr. Holcomb made various arguments in response which were all rejected, and the court found that his appeal was frivolous. Mr. Holcomb was ordered to pay $2,000 to the federal employer. Mr. Holcomb’s conduct violated RPC1.4, requiring a lawyer to promptly inform the client of any decision of circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required, reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished, keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, consult with the client about any relevant limitations, and explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; RPC 1.16(a)(1), requiring a lawyer to terminate representation where representation results in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; RPC 3.1, prohibiting a lawyer from bringing or defending a proceeding unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous; RPC 5.5(a), prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; RPC 5.8(a), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in the practice of law while suspended from the practice of law for any cause; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; RPC 8.4(j), prohibiting a lawyer from willfully disobeying or violating a court order directing him or her to do or cease doing an act which he or she ought in good faith to do or forbear; and RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer from violating a duty or sanction imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct in connection with a disciplinary matter. M. Craig Bray represented the Bar Association. Catherine M. McDonald represented Mr. Holcomb. | |
| Suspension | 2008-06-21 | 1.16 - Declining or Terminating Representation 1.4 - Communication 3.1 - Meritorious Claims and Contentions 5.5 - Unauthorized Practice of Law 5.8 - Misconduct Involving Disbarred, Suspended, Resigned, or Inactive Lawyers 8.4 (d) - Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice 8.4 (j) - Disobey Court Order 8.4 (l) - Violate ELCs | James Byron Holcomb (WSBA No. 1695, admitted 1967), of Bainbridge Island, was suspended for three years, effective June 21, 2008, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following approval of a stipulation. This discipline resulted from conduct in three matters involving failure to communicate, representation of clients in violation of the Rules, filing frivolous proceedings, practicing law while suspended, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, disobeying a court order, and violations of duties in connection with a disciplinary matter. Matter No. 1: On December 20, 2007, the Supreme Court suspended Mr. Holcomb from the practice of law for six months, effective immediately. Mr. Holcomb knew of the suspension and filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Suspension on January 3, 2008, which was denied. Prior to his suspension, Mr. Holcomb had filed a Notice of Appearance for Client A, who was charged with DUI in a district court matter. After being suspended, Mr. Holcomb did not advise Client A, the court, or opposing counsel of his suspension and did not withdraw from representing Client A. Mr. Holcomb appeared with Client A in court on January 7, 2008, to request a continuance in Client A’s matter, and on February 4, 2008, to enter a pre-trial diversion agreement. The presiding judge later discovered that Mr. Holcomb was suspended from the practice of law. The judge summoned Client A back to court to meet with another attorney and decide if he wished to continue with the diversion agreement, which the client later reaffirmed. Matter No. 2: In 2006, prior to his suspension, Mr. Holcomb began representing Client B, who was charged with DUI in a district court matter. After being suspended, Mr. Holcomb did not notify Client B, the court, or opposing counsel of his suspension and did not withdraw from representing Client B. Mr. Holcomb appeared in court with Client B on February 5, 2008, when Client B entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge. Mr. Holcomb also requested continuances of the sentencing date on Client B’s behalf and represented Client B in court at his sentencing on June 19, 2008. Matter No. 3: Client C hired Mr. Holcomb to represent him in appealing to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) his removal from a position with a federal employer. Mr. Holcomb filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Client C on April 25, 2006. The appeal went to hearing before an administrative judge (AJ). On October 10, 2006, prior to a decision being made, Mr. Holcomb filed a Motion to Supplement Argument on Appeal, asserting that Client C had a mentally handicapping condition that rendered him incompetent to withdraw the appeal, and asked the AJ to order a mental evaluation. On that same date, Client C notified the AJ and Mr. Holcomb by letter that he wished to withdraw his appeal so that he could pursue his claim through arbitration. Client C also notified the AJ and Mr. Holcomb that he had terminated Mr. Holcomb’s representation. The AJ denied Mr. Holcomb’s motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that Client C was acting knowingly and voluntarily when he requested dismissal of his appeal. Client C settled his claim with the federal employer, but did not advise the MSPB or Mr. Holcomb of the settlement. Mr. Holcomb filed a petition for review of the AJ’s decision with the MSPB, claiming to act on behalf of Client C, and again asserting that Client C had a mentally handicapping condition that rendered him incompetent to withdraw the appeal and asking the MSPB to order a mental evaluation. Client C had not re-authorized Mr. Holcomb to act on his behalf. The Clerk of the MSPB entered an order to show cause directed to Client C stating that the Board would not accept the petition for review unless it received within 15 days a “Designation of Representation” signed by Client C indicating that he had once again designated Mr. Holcomb as his representative. Client C did not respond to the order and the MSPB dismissed Mr. Holcomb’s petition for review. Mr. Holcomb filed a petition for review of the MSPB’s dismissal in the U.S. Court of Appeals, stating in the petition that he was representing Client C even though Client C had not authorized him to file the petition for review. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal because Mr. Holcomb failed to demonstrate that he was Client C’s representative. The Court of Appeals ordered Mr. Holcomb to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal. Mr. Holcomb made various arguments in response which were all rejected, and the court found that his appeal was frivolous. Mr. Holcomb was ordered to pay $2,000 to the federal employer. Mr. Holcomb’s conduct violated RPC1.4, requiring a lawyer to promptly inform the client of any decision of circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required, reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished, keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, consult with the client about any relevant limitations, and explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation; RPC 1.16(a)(1), requiring a lawyer to terminate representation where representation results in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; RPC 3.1, prohibiting a lawyer from bringing or defending a proceeding unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous; RPC 5.5(a), prohibiting a lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; RPC 5.8(a), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in the practice of law while suspended from the practice of law for any cause; RPC 8.4(d), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; RPC 8.4(j), prohibiting a lawyer from willfully disobeying or violating a court order directing him or her to do or cease doing an act which he or she ought in good faith to do or forbear; and RPC 8.4(l), prohibiting a lawyer from violating a duty or sanction imposed by or under the Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct in connection with a disciplinary matter. M. Craig Bray represented the Bar Association. Catherine M. McDonald represented Mr. Holcomb. | |
| Suspension | 2007-12-20 | 1.7 - Conflict of Interest; General Rule 1.8 - (prior to 9/1/2006) Conflict of Interest; Prohibited Transactions; Current Client | James B. Holcomb (WSBA No. 1695, admitted 1967), of Bainbridge Island, was suspended for six months, effective December 20, 2007, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court following an appeal. This discipline was based on conduct involving conflicts of interest. In 1998, Mr. Holcomb agreed to represent a client for an hourly fee to review files and make recommendations regarding an equal employment opportunity action that the client had filed pro se. Mr. Holcomb and the client later signed a second fee agreement in which Mr. Holcomb agreed to represent the client in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) hearing. When the EEOC denied the client’s claim and the client decided to appeal to the U.S. District Court, the client and Mr. Holcomb agreed to a contingent fee arrangement and signed a third agreement. In 2003, after the District Court dismissed the client’s appeal, Mr. Holcomb and the client entered into a fourth fee agreement in which Mr. Holcomb agreed to file a notice of appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and seek mediation of the client’s claim. Sometime in early March 2003, the client and Mr. Holcomb reached an impasse regarding the representation in the appeal, and Mr. Holcomb withdrew. From December 1999 through March 2001, Mr. Holcomb borrowed from the client a total of $52,300 in 24 individual loans. The amount of each individual loan ranged from $750 to $3,500. Most of the loans were outstanding for no more than two weeks; the last loan was outstanding for over a year. Mr. Holcomb eventually repaid all of the loans. The loans were not subject to a written loan agreement, payment of interest, penalties or fees, or a schedule for repayment of the principal. Mr. Holcomb did not provide security for the loans, did not advise the client that his personal interests might conflict with the client’s interests, did not obtain a written waiver of a conflict of interest, did not provide the client with information about his current financial condition, and did not advise the client that he could seek independent counsel about the suitability of his loan request. Eleven of the loans were made by cashier’s check to Mr. Holcomb and contained references to the client; 13 of the loans were made by personal check from an account in the name of the client and his wife’s trust and were signed by either the client or his wife. Mr. Holcomb repaid the loans by personal checks made payable to the client. Mr. Holcomb’s conduct violated former RPC 1.7(b), prohibiting a lawyer from representing a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s own interests unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents in writing after consultation and a full disclosure of the material facts; and former RPC 1.8(a), prohibiting a lawyer from entering into a business transaction with a client unless the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner which can be reasonably understood by the client, the client is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel in the transaction, and the client consents thereto. M. Craig Bray represented the Bar Association. Brett A. Purtzer represented Mr. Holcomb. David K. Hiscock was the hearing officer. |
| Street Address |
PO Box 10069 |
| City | Bainbridge Island |
| State | WA |
| Zip Code | 98110-0069 |
| Country | United States |
| Lawyer Name | Company Name | Address | Admit Date | License Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas R Taylor | PO Box 10247, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-0247 | 2000-05-02 | Inactive | |
| Paul A. Cullen | Paul Cullen PLLC | Po Box11577, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 | 1976-10-27 | Active |
| Edward L. Rosling | Route 6, Box 6439, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 | 1920-10-23 | Deceased | |
| Michael Diehl | Michael Diehl | PO Box 10218, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-0218 | 2001-04-03 | Voluntarily Resigned |
| Mary C Eklund | PO Box 10302, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-0302 | 1982-05-17 | Voluntarily Resigned | |
| Laura Genoves | Laura Genoves, LT, PLLC | PO Box 10191, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-0191 | 2017-05-22 | Active |
| Audranne Favaron Mixon | C/O Foster Law Group, PLLC | 177 Hall Brothers Loop, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 | 2002-11-21 | Inactive |
| Daniel Pitpitan Bugay | Po Box 10215, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 | 2005-07-19 | Active | |
| Emily Anna Louise Makane Gaskin | 7563 Ne Meadowmeer Ln, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 | 2022-04-21 | Inactive | |
| Stephan R. Illa | Attorney at Law | PO Box 10033, Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-0033 | 1986-06-02 | Active |
| Find all lawyers in the same zip code | ||||
| Lawyer Name | Company Name | Address | Admit Date | License Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Byron J Moore | Moore Law Firm, PLLC | 9116 East Sprague Avenue, #1022, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 | 2011-05-23 | Active |
| James Byron Fairbanks | 1026 Aspen Valley Ave, Las Vegas, NV 89123-3199 | 1999-06-14 | Suspended | |
| Byron A. Adams | 280 E Queens Dr, Williamsburg, VA 23185-5041 | 1971-03-03 | Suspended | |
| Byron D Coney | 1047 Belmont Pl E, Seattle, WA 98102-4426 | 1955-03-29 | Suspended | |
| Mark E. Holcomb | Morton McGoldrick PLLC | 820 A St Ste 600, Tacoma, WA 98402-5293 | 1988-06-01 | Active |
| James Byron Sawyer II | 2160 E Island Lake Dr, Shelton, WA 98584-9184 | 1974-11-07 | Inactive | |
| Thomas George Holcomb Jr | 1900 McCormick St NE, Olympia, WA 98506-3436 | 1969-09-25 | Suspended | |
| Sam Byron Gunn | Gunn Mackenzie PLLC | 10000 NE 7th Ave Ste 370, Vancouver, WA 98685-4556 | 1975-11-06 | Active |
| Thomas George Holcomb | 2325 Financial Ctr, Seattle, WA 98161 | 1947-09-10 | Disbarred | |
| Alison Holcomb | ACLU of Washington | PO Box 2728, Seattle, WA 98111-2728 | 1993-11-19 | Active |
Do you have more infomration about James Byron Holcomb? Please fill in the following form.
This dataset includes 60 thousand lawyers and legal practice officers licensed with Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts. Each entity is registered with license nubmer, full name, employer, practice location, contact information, admitted year, etc.