February 22, 2013 - Oregon State Bar

BOG Agenda Memo — CSF Claim JORDAN (Flores-Salazar) Request for Review
February 22, 2013 Page 2
2.2.2 A lawyer’s failure to perform or complete a legal engagement shall not constitute, in itself,
evidence of misrepresentation, false promise or dishonest conduct.
2.2.3 Reimbursement of a legal fee will be allowed only if (i) the lawyer provided no legal services
to the client in the engagement; or (ii) the legal services that the lawyer actually provided were,
in the Committee’s judgment, minimal or insignificant;….
2.2.4 In the event that a client is provided equivalent legal services by another lawyer without
cost to the client, the legal fee paid to the predecessor lawyer will not be eligible for
reimbursement, except in extraordinary circumstances.
The CSF Committee found no evidence that Jordan had been dishonest in accepting Flores-Salazar’s
advance fee; it also concluded that Jordan’s services were more than minimal or insignificant and
that Flores-Salazar had received the benefit of the remaining services at no additional cost.
Accordingly, the Committee concluded that Flores-Salazar had suffered no loss and that his claim
was, at best, a fee dispute.
Flores-Salazar made a timely request for BOG review of the CSF Committee’s decision. In his
request he cites Jordan’s stipulation for discipline in which Jordan agreed there was “potential for
great injury and Flores-Salazar suffered anxiety and frustration” during the period between Jordan’s
suspension and the appointment of new counsel. The stipulation includes Jordan’s
acknowledgement that he caused actual injury to Flores-Salazar by refusing to refund the unearned
portion of the advanced fees. Flores-Salazar asserts that Jordan was dishonest in failing to disclose
his “original disability, 2 ” in exaggerating Flores-Salazar’s chance of success on appeal, and because
he tried to collect an additional $15,000 while he was suspended. Finally, Flores-Salazar says he did
not receive from the public defender’s office “all of the services I paid Mr. Jordan to complete or
the result he suggested to me.”
Disciplinary Counsel’s Office’s investigation of Jordan is relevant to Flores-Salazar’s
assertions about Jordan’s dishonesty. Jordan was a member of both the Oregon and California bars,
focusing on immigration and criminal defense. His practice in California “ran into some problems” in
2003-2004 in connection with eight immigration matters and Jordan stipulated to a 2-year
suspension (all but 9 months stayed) of his California license. The California Supreme Court
approved the stipulation in May 2007, but the OSB had been aware of Jordan’s difficulties for some
time. In October 2006, DCO asked Jordan for information about his status and in June 2007
informed Jordan he would be subject to reciprocal suspension based on the California discipline.
In July 2007, DCO notified the Oregon Supreme Court of Jordan’s California suspension and
asked for a similar suspension. Jordan filed an objection, arguing he should be suspended in Oregon
only for the 9 months he was actually suspended in California. On November 1, 2007, the Oregon
Supreme Court issued an order suspending Jordan for 9 months, effective immediately. Jordan
asked for a deferred effective date in order to wrap up pending client matters and the court agreed,
making his suspension effective January 1, 2008.
Several of Jordan’s requests for more time to file the opening brief were made during the
time he knew the OSB was seeking reciprocal discipline for his California suspension. His opening
brief for Flores-Salazar was filed five days before the Oregon Supreme Court issued its original
suspension order. Accordingly, by that time Jordan knew he would not be able to complete Flores-
2 Presumably this refers to Jordan’s disciplinary problems, discussed below.