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

Cite as In re Scharfstein, 19 DB Rptr 97 (2005)
Violations
12.
The Accused admits that, by engaging in the conduct described in paragraphs
9 through 11 of this stipulation, he violated DR 6-101(B) and DR 1-103(C).
Case No. 04-12
Facts
13.
On or about March 5, 2001, the Accused undertook to represent Michael and
Elisabeth Sumpter (hereinafter “the Sumpters”) in a stepparent adoption. Between
March 2001 and October 2003, the Accused failed to complete the adoption. Between
March 2002 and October 2003, the Accused failed to respond to the Sumpters’
attempts to contact him and failed to keep them adequately informed about the status
of their case.
14.
On about August 1, 2003, the court dismissed the Sumpters’ adoption
proceeding for want of prosecution. Thereafter, until about October 2003, the
Accused failed to take any steps to set aside the order of dismissal.
15.
On or about August 16, 2001, the Accused undertook to represent the
Sumpters in a medical malpractice claim. After about November 16, 2002, and until
October 2003, the Accused took no substantial action on the Sumpters’ claim, failed
to respond to the Sumpters’ attempts to contact him, and failed to keep them
informed about the status of their case.
Violations
16.
The Accused admits that, by engaging in the conduct described in paragraphs
13 through 15 of this stipulation, he violated DR 6-101(B).
Sanction
17.
The Accused and the Bar agree that in fashioning an appropriate sanction in
this case, the Disciplinary Board should consider the ABA Standards for Imposing
Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter “Standards”). The Standards require that the Accused’s
conduct be analyzed by considering the following factors: (1) the ethical duty
violated; (2) the lawyer’s mental state; (3) the actual or potential injury; and (4) the
existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
100