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

Cite as In re Davis, 19 DB Rptr 116 (2005)
intervening factor or event, would probably have resulted from the lawyer’s
misconduct. Standards, at 7.
The Accused caused actual injury to her client. The Accused’s client was
frustrated by the Accused’s failure to communicate with her. Because the Accused
failed to communicate, the opportunity to accept Schafer’s settlement proposal, which
included the distribution of a portion of the insurance proceeds received by the estate
of Deborah McGinnis to the Accused’s client, was lost. As a result, the estate of
James McGinnis lacked funds and other assets to pay his debts and other expenses
related to the administration of his estate.
The legal system and the disciplinary authorities were also injured. The
disciplinary authorities devoted additional time and resources to investigate the
complaint because the Accused did not respond. The Accused also caused injury to
the profession. The profession is judged by the conduct of its members.
D. Aggravating Factors. “Aggravating factors” are considerations that
increase the degree of discipline to be imposed. Standards, § 9.22. There are several
aggravating factors in this case. There are multiple offenses and a pattern of
misconduct. Standards, § 9.22(d), (c). The Accused delayed the regulatory process.
Standards, § 9.22(e). The Accused has substantial experience in the practice of law.
She was admitted to practice in 1977. Standards, § 9.22(i). The client was vulnerable
in that she relied on the Accused to actively advance her objectives; to promptly
conclude the case; and to keep her informed. Standards, § 9.22(h).
E. Mitigating Factors. The Accused has no prior record of discipline.
Standards, § 9.32(a). There is an absence of selfish or dishonest motives. Standards,
§ 9.32(b). The Accused had a good reputation in the legal community and is
remorseful. Standards, § 9.32(g), (m).
12.
The Standards provide that suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer
fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client;
or engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury or potential injury to a client.
Standards, § 4.42. Suspension is also appropriate when a lawyer knows that he or
she is violating a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a client
or a party, or causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding.
Standards, § 6.22. Suspension is also 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, § 7.2. Case law
is in accord. See, e.g., In re Miles, 324 Or 218, 923 P2d 1219 (1996); In re
Schaffner, 323 Or 472, 918 P2d 803 (1996). See also In re Piper, 14 DB Rptr 153
(2000); In re Berentson, 12 DB Rptr 74 (1998); In re Bonner, 12 DB Rptr 209
(1998).
120