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

Cite as In re Scharfstein, 19 DB Rptr 97 (2005)
month pregnancy for medical reasons, and the Accused’s wife miscarried another
child.
4. Interim rehabilitation. Standards, § 9.32(k). The Accused has taken
steps to remedy the office management and conflict management problems that
contributed to his conduct.
18.
Standards § 4.42 suggests that suspension is generally appropriate when (a) a
lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential
injury to a client or (b) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury or
potential injury to a client. Standards § 7.2 suggests that suspension is generally
appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty
owed as a professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public
or the legal system. Standards at page 23 suggests that probation is a sanction that
should be imposed when a lawyer’s right to practice law needs to be monitored or
limited. However, the probationary conditions must make sense in light of the
misconduct at issue. In re Haws, 310 Or 741, 801 P2d 818 (1990).
19.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Standards suggest that a period of
suspension with probation is the appropriate sanction. In this case, probation is
appropriate because the Accused has been addressing the law office management
problems and inexperience that contributed to his conduct, and there have been no
further complaints concerning his conduct. Probation is intended to assist the Accused
in maintaining his current course of education and training and to monitor his
practice over a period of time.
20.
Oregon case law supports a term of suspension with probation in this case.
In re Seto, 16 DB Rptr 10 (2002); In re Dodge, 16 DB Rptr 278 (2002); In re
Cohen, 9 DB Rptr 229; In re Hughes, 9 DB Rptr 37 (1995). See also In re Schaffner,
323 Or 472, 918 P2d 803 (1996) (120-day suspension for violation of DR 1-103(C)
(two counts) and DR 6-101(B)); In re Piper, 14 DB Rptr 153 (2000) (120-day
suspension for violation of DR 1-103(C), DR 2-110(A)(2), DR 6-101(B), and DR
7-101(A)(2)); In re Bonner, 12 DB Rptr 209 (1998) (120-day suspension for
violation of DR 1-103(C), DR 6-101(B), and DR 7-101(A)(2)).
21.
Consistent with the Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that the
Accused shall be suspended for 120 days, all but 30 days of which shall be stayed
subject to the Accused’s completion of a one-year probation. The sanction shall be
effective 10 days from the date this stipulation is approved by the Disciplinary Board
102