February 22, 2013 - Oregon State Bar

BOG Agenda Memo — CSF Claim JORDAN (Flores-Salazar) Request for Review
February 22, 2013 Page 3
Salazar’s appeal. Additionally, notwithstanding have been give two months to complete pending
client matters, Jordan did not seek leave to withdraw from Flores-Salazar’s appeal and did not
inform Flores-Salazar that he would be unable to continue the representation.
Flores-Salazar claims not to have known about Jordan’s suspension until he received a letter
in late June 2008. (The letter was dated June 24, 2007, but DCO suspects it was a typographical
error or an intentional misdating to avoid a charge of practicing while suspended.) Jordan assured
Flores-Salazar that he would finish the case when he was reinstated, although he also confirmed
that Flores-Salazar didn’t need to wait for Jordan’s reinstatement but could hire a new lawyer if he
wished.
In the letter, Jordan also asserted that Flores-Salazar owed an additional $15,000 for work
Jordan had done on the brief because the appeal was more complicated that he originally
anticipated. Flores-Salazar disagreed and, in fact, claimed to be owed a partial refund of what he
had already paid. He wrote to Jordan demanding a refund of $10,000 but Jordan never answered.
In August 2008, the state filed its brief and case was “at issue.” In November 2008,
concerned that his interests weren’t being protected, Flores-Salazar wrote to the Court of Appeals
informing it that Jordan had been suspended and requesting that he be appointed new counsel. In
December 2008, counsel appointed by the PLF filed a motion on Jordan’s behalf for permission to
withdraw.
DCO believed there was probable cause to charge Jordan with dishonesty (among other
things) because the June 2008 (?) letter was misleading in suggesting he would be available to
complete the appeal and Jordan’s claim to be entitled to another $15,000 in fees for work on the
brief was a misrepresentation because nothing more was owed under clear language of the fee
agreement.
Conclusion
The essence of Flores-Salazar’s claim is that Jordan was dishonest about his ability to see the
representation through to the end and, while he was thereafter represented without charge by
appointed counsel, the fees paid to Jordan should be reimbursed. The Board must decide whether
there is sufficient evidence of dishonesty by Jordan to meet the standard of CSF Rule 2.2.1 and if so,
whether that constitutes “extraordinary circumstances” within the meaning of Rule 2.2.4.
Attachments: Flores-Salazar Request for Review