Longtime Clallam County attorney Lane Wolfley and his firm, Wolfley & Wolfley, P.S., face a lawsuit in Clallam County Superior Court alleging legal malpractice, fraud, and the misappropriation of client funds. The complaint, brought by plaintiff Kimberly Pritchard, accuses Wolfley of mishandling a $1 million medical malpractice settlement, collecting unauthorized fees, and engaging in deceptive financial practices. Wolfley and his legal team filed a formal response on November 21, 2025, denying the allegations of wrongdoing. The case is assigned to Judge Elizabeth Stanley.
Allegations of Bait and Switch
Court documents state that Pritchard initially retained Wolfley to pursue a medical malpractice claim against Olympic Medical Center and Dr. Stephan D. Bush concerning a 2018 surgery that allegedly resulted in permanent injuries. The lawsuit alleges that prior to hiring Wolfley, Pritchard had already received a settlement offer of $1 million from the medical providers. The complaint claims Wolfley induced Pritchard to hire him by promising he could secure a larger settlement and by guaranteeing her a loan to prevent a pending foreclosure on her home. Pritchard alleges Wolfley instructed her to keep the loan secret because of his history of bar discipline for loaning money to clients. Despite filing a lawsuit on her behalf, the complaint states that Wolfley eventually advised Pritchard to accept the same $1 million offer he had previously disparaged, telling her that “no jury in Clallam County would ever grant an amount greater than that.”
Fee Dispute and Missing Funds
A central allegation in the suit concerns the legal fees Wolfley charged. Pritchard claims she signed a contingency fee agreement stipulating Wolfley would receive 18% of the recovery if the case settled before trial. However, after the settlement was reached through mediation, Wolfley allegedly attempted to have Pritchard sign a backdated agreement raising his fee to 33%. When Pritchard refused to sign the new agreement, the lawsuit alleges Wolfley unilaterally retained the higher amount—approximately $330,000—rather than the agreed-upon 18%. Pritchard further alleges that Wolfley delayed disbursing the remaining funds to her, ignored her phone calls, and commingled her settlement money with his own. When he finally issued a check to Pritchard for $60,000 in August 2022, the lawsuit claims it bounced due to insufficient funds in his trust account. The Amended Complaint asserts that this situation necessarily demonstrates Wolfley misappropriated part of her money.
Formerly Suspended By The Bar Association
The current allegations of financial impropriety are not Wolfley’s first encounter with professional discipline. In June 2005, the Washington State Supreme Court suspended Wolfley from the practice of law for three years following a disciplinary investigation that uncovered sexual misconduct with a client, dishonesty under oath, and improper financial dealings. According to the Stipulation to Discipline filed by the Washington State Bar Association, Wolfley admitted to engaging in sexual misconduct with a client he was representing in a personal injury matter in late 2002. The records state that Wolfley knowingly made sexual advances toward the client, including kissing and fondling her, despite the absence of any consensual relationship prior to his legal representation.
The attorney’s misconduct was exacerbated by his initial deceptions during the state bar’s inquiry. In a formal written reply to the grievance, Wolfley described his connection with the client as simply "friendly and flirtatious," while denying any romantic interest or improper physical contact. He reiterated these claims under oath during a September 2003 deposition, asserting that he had never touched the client’s breasts or buttocks. Wolfley subsequently acknowledged that this testimony was intentionally false after video footage from the client’s residence verified that he had engaged in "intimate physical contact" with her.
The 2005 suspension also covered improper financial relationships with clients, a pattern that mirrors the accusations in the current Pritchard litigation. The Washington State Bar Association determined that Wolfley breached professional conduct rules by extending financial help to two distinct clients.
Wolfley agreed to the three-year suspension. A copy of the stipulation is available here.
Prior Malpractice Litigation
In November 2001, a separate malpractice action was initiated against Wolfley and his then-employer, Wolfley, Basden & Hansen, P.S., by a couple identified as Robert and Patricia Stark.
The plaintiffs claimed that Wolfley advised them that a commercial lease they possessed with tenants in Forks, Washington, was either void or subject to rescission. Relying on this legal counsel, the couple vacated the property, only to face a breach of contract suit from their landlords.
The Starks argued that Wolfley "fell below the standard of care expected of attorneys practicing law in the State of Washington" by issuing the incorrect advice that resulted in their legal liability.
The 2001 matter was ultimately dismissed without prejudice in June 2003 due to "want of prosecution." This procedural closure occurred because neither side had filed any action on the record for more than 12 months, rather than through a decision on the substance of the malpractice claim.
Significantly, the 2001 lawsuit underscores a longstanding professional and personal bond between Wolfley and current Clallam County Superior Court Judge Brent Basden.
Court documents indicate that Basden served as the defense counsel for Wolfley in the malpractice proceeding, submitting the Notice of Appearance on behalf of the firm and his partner.
Although Judge Basden is not a litigant in the present Pritchard case, this historical link situates Wolfley within the established legal community of Clallam County. This context is referenced in the Pritchard complaint, which notes Wolfley’s remarks regarding the likelihood of a local jury awarding specific damages.
Current Legal Claims and Defense
The active malpractice suit filed by Pritchard seeks damages across several counts, including legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
Pritchard is requesting the reimbursement of unauthorized fees, compensation for financial and emotional distress, and treble damages pursuant to consumer protection statutes.
In their Answer to the Amended Complaint, Wolfley and his firm conceded the existence of an attorney-client relationship but rejected the specific allegations of fraud, conversion, and malpractice.
The matter is currently active in Clallam County Superior Court. A copy of the Complaint is available here.
For digital distribution, please link directly to the designated canonical address to ensure search engines properly attribute the content to the source.
The material should not be sold or utilized primarily as a vehicle for generating ad revenue.
To obtain the formatted file, select the option to duplicate the story’s HTML code.
Reach out via the provided contact channel for further inquiries.