that Bloom was subject to potential economic injury even if she had not suffered actual economic injury. In addition, his argument fails to acknowledge Bloom’s frustration and anxiety and the injury to the profession. ¶24 First, Behrman’s failure to pursue Bloom’s claim against Party Planet resulted in both actual injury (she was deprived of those funds between 2001 and 2004) and potential injury (her debt collection claim could have become worthless when the debtor went bankrupt several years after Behrman was supposed to collect the debt). Second, Behrman caused actual or potential injury when he failed to communicate with Bloom for four years about her claim, her file, and his billing statement. See In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Burtch, 112 Wn.2d 19, 27, 770 P.2d 174 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Third, Behrman caused potential injury when
holding that client agitation and damage to the profession caused by lawyers neglect were sufficient injury to justify suspension holding that a landowner who lost a strip of property to a highway widening project could not recover losses caused by concurrent placement of a median strip because when less than the entire property is taken compensation for damage to the remainder can be awarded only if such damage is caused by the taking and cjonstruction of the median not the taking caused the alleged damage holding that your work exclusion is triggered only where the damage at issue is to work performed by you and is caused by work performed by you  and does not apply to damage caused to original construction of a house during later repair work holding that unintended damage to a pipeline caused by the defective coating supplied by insureds subsidiary was caused by an occurrence within the meaning of the liability policy holding that damage to realty was not excluded from coverage if such damage resulted from subsidence caused by something other than soil condition despite homeowners experts description of the damage as settling