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

Cite as In re Davis, 19 DB Rptr 116 (2005)
STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE
Penny L. Davis, attorney at law (hereinafter “Accused”), and the Oregon State
Bar (hereinafter “Bar”) hereby stipulate to the following matters pursuant to Oregon
State Bar Rule of Procedure 3.6(c).
1.
The Bar was created and exists by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon
and is, and at all times mentioned herein was, authorized to carry out the provisions
of ORS Chapter 9, relating to the discipline of lawyers.
2.
The Accused was admitted by the Oregon Supreme Court to the practice of
law on September 26, 1977, and has been a member of the Oregon State Bar
continuously since that time, having her office and place of business in Multnomah
County, Oregon.
3.
The Accused enters into this Stipulation for Discipline freely, voluntarily, and
with the advice of counsel. This Stipulation for Discipline is made under the
restrictions of Bar Rule of Procedure 3.6(h).
4.
On November 20, 2004, the State Professional Responsibility Board authorized
a formal disciplinary proceeding against the Accused for alleged violations of DR
1-103(C), DR 6-101(B), and DR 7-101(A)(2). The parties intend that this stipulation
set forth all relevant facts, violations, and the agreed-upon sanction as a final
disposition of this proceeding.
Facts and Violations
5.
On or about July 12, 2002, James McGinnis, Deborah McGinnis, and their
minor child, Kimberly McGinnis, died as a result of an explosion/fire in their home.
In July 2002, Charmaine Bannister (hereinafter “Bannister”) was appointed to serve
as the personal representative of the estate of James McGinnis. Patricia Schafer
(hereinafter “Schafer”) was appointed to serve as the personal representative of the
estate of Deborah McGinnis.
6.
On or about February 23, 2003, Bannister retained the Accused to represent
her interests as the personal representative and to conclude the probate of the estate
of James McGinnis. Schafer was represented by other counsel (hereinafter “Schafer’s
Counsel”). Primary issues of dispute were the distribution of insurance proceeds paid
117