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

Cite as In re Davis, 19 DB Rptr 116 (2005)
9.
On or about July 14, 2004, the LPRC investigator telephoned and left a
message for the Accused asking her to call to schedule a meeting concerning the
complaint. The Accused did not respond. On July 22, 2004, the LPRC investigator
sent the Accused a letter asking that she contact the investigator to schedule a
meeting concerning the complaint. The Accused did not respond. On August 3, 2004,
the LPRC sent the Accused a second letter asking that she contact the investigator
to schedule a meeting concerning the complaint. The Accused did not respond. On
or about August 13, 2004, the LPRC issued a subpoena for the Accused to appear
for deposition concerning the complaint. The subpoena was served on the Accused
on August 16, 2004. The Accused appeared for deposition on September 2, 2004.
10.
The Accused admits that the aforesaid conduct constituted failure to respond
the inquires of the disciplinary authorities; neglect of a legal matter entrusted to her;
and intentional failure to carry out a contract of employment, in violation of DR
1-103(C), DR 6-101(B), and DR 7-101(A)(2) of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Sanction
11.
The Accused and the Bar agree that in fashioning an appropriate sanction, the
ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter “Standards”) are
considered. The Standards require that the Accused’s conduct be analyzed by 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. Standards, § 3.0.
A. Duty Violated. In violating DR 1-103(C), DR 6-101(B), and DR
7-101(A)(2), the Accused violated duties to her client, the legal system, and the
profession. Standards, §§ 4.4, 6.2, 7.0.
B. Mental State. “Intent” is the conscious objective or purpose to
accomplish a particular result. “Knowledge” is the conscious awareness of the nature
or attendant circumstances of the conduct but without the conscious objective to
accomplish a particular result. Standards, at 7. The Accused knew that she was
responsible for and needed to take action concerning her client’s legal matter, but
failed to act. The Accused also knew that the disciplinary authorities made numerous
requests for her explanation, but she failed to respond.
C. Injury. The Standards define “injury” as harm to the client, the public,
the legal system, or the profession that results from a lawyer’s conduct. “Potential
injury” is harm to the client, the public, the legal system, or the profession that is
reasonably foreseeable at the time of the lawyer’s conduct, and which, but for some
119