P:\CLEPUB\Books\Disciplinary Board Reporter ... - Oregon State Bar

Cite as In re Steele, 19 DB Rptr 87 (2005)
7.
On September 10, 2003, the Accused sent an e-mail to Ann Christian
(hereinafter “Christian”), informing her that a mandamus proceeding had been filed.
Christian was employed by the Public Defense Services Commission (hereinafter
“PDSC”). The PDSC was responsible for compensating lawyers who represented
indigent criminal defendants in Oregon.
8.
In a responding e-mail on September 18, 2003, Christian asked the Accused
whether she intended to bill the state for the time expended in the mandamus
proceeding after the Accused’s representation had been terminated. The Accused’s
responding e-mail, also sent on September 18, 2003, informed Christian that neither
she nor her co-counsel had charged, nor were they charging, the state for their work
in the mandamus proceeding.
9.
In early October 2003, an appellate court denied the petition in the mandamus
proceeding.
10.
On November 14, 2003, the Accused submitted to PDSC a request for
reimbursement for her and her co-counsel’s reasonable time and expenses in the
mandamus proceeding. On December 1, 2003, PDSC sent a notice to the Accused
informing her that her request for fees in the mandamus proceeding were being
denied for a number of reasons. One reason for the denial was that the Accused had
previously agreed not to seek compensation for work performed in the mandamus
proceeding.
11.
On December 11, 2003, the Accused sent a letter to PDSC requesting
reconsideration of its December 1, 2003, decision. On December 11, 2003, Ingrid
Swenson (hereinafter “Swenson”), PDSC’s general counsel, sent a letter to the
Accused denying the request for reconsideration because the Accused’s representation
of the client had been terminated before the mandamus proceeding had been filed,
the Accused had not requested preauthorization to file the mandamus proceeding, and
the Accused had previously advised Christian that neither she nor her co-counsel had
charged or would charge the state for work performed in the mandamus proceeding.
12.
On December 16, 2003, the Accused sent a letter to Swenson representing that
she had not waived any right to seek reimbursement for her reasonable time and
expenses in the mandamus proceeding, that the prior e-mail communications between
89