In the Matter of Eddleman

Anton Johansen owned a commercial airplane that needed maintenance and repairs. The plane was worth around $43,000, and Johansen’s creditors had approximately $27,000 in liens on it. Johansen approached attorney William Eddleman (defendant), seeking help with the liens. Eddleman told Johansen to sign the plane’s title over to Eddleman. Eddleman would then pay off the creditors, fix the plane, and charter the plane until he received enough charter income to (1) repay his expenses and (2) cover an unstated fee amount from Johansen for Eddleman’s services. Eddleman said that he would then return the plane to Johansen but refused to put this promise in writing. In distress, Johansen grudgingly agreed to the verbal deal. Eddleman paid off most of Johansen’s creditors, fixed the plane, and began chartering it. However, one of Johansen’s unpaid creditors sued and sought to garnish the plane. In this lawsuit, Eddleman claimed multiple times, each time under oath, that he had no agreement with Johansen about an airplane. When pressed later, Eddleman made alternating, inconsistent claims about his agreement with Johansen and stated that he had been confused about the way the questions were worded. Johansen also wrote to Eddleman, demanding that Eddleman (1) show what he had spent on and earned from the plane and (2) return the plane. In response, Eddleman claimed that Johansen had sold the plane to him outright. However, shortly after the original deal, Eddleman had admitted the real details to two attorneys. When told that both attorneys were willing to testify about these conversations, Eddleman returned the plane in exchange for Johansen paying Eddleman $9,000 in attorneys’ fees. At that point, Eddleman had owned the plane for three years, and it was worth approximately $65,000. Additional lawsuits about various related matters followed, and each time, Eddleman provided different stories and made false statements, under oath, about the parties’ original agreement. Eventually, a disciplinary action was filed against Eddleman, charging him with violating his duties to his client and committing repeated acts of dishonesty and corruption. The Board of Governors (plaintiff) heard evidence and recommended that the Washington Supreme Court sanction Eddleman with a one-year suspension and three separate reprimands.