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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

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
Cite as In re Davis, 19 DB Rptr 116 (2005) 13. Consistent with the Standards and case law, the Bar and the Accused agree that the Accused shall be suspended from the practice of law for 120 days for violation of DR 1-103(C), DR 6-101(B), and DR 7-101(A)(2), the suspension effective June 1, 2005, or three days after the Disciplinary Board approves this stipulation, whichever is later. 14. This Stipulation for Discipline has been reviewed by the Disciplinary Counsel of the Oregon State Bar, the sanction was approved by the chairperson of the State Professional Responsibility Board, and this stipulation shall be submitted to the Disciplinary Board for consideration under the terms of BR 3.6. DATED this 20th day of April 2005. /s/ Penny L. Davis Penny L. Davis OSB No. 77153 OREGON STATE BAR By: /s/ Jane E. Angus Jane E. Angus OSB No. 73014 Assistant Disciplinary Counsel 121
Page 1:
white text DISCIPLINARY BOARD REPOR
Page 4 and 5:
white text PREFACE This Disciplinar
Page 6 and 7:
white text Justices of the Oregon S
Page 8 and 9:
white text 2005 DISCIPLINARY BOARD
Page 10 and 11:
Cases Reported in Volume 19 In re C
Page 12 and 13:
Cases Reported in Volume 19 In re K
Page 14 and 15:
Cases Reported in Volume 19 In re S
Page 16 and 17:
Cite as In re Klahn, 19 DB Rptr 1 (
Page 18 and 19:
Cite as In re Klahn, 19 DB Rptr 1 (
Page 20 and 21:
Cite as In re Dobie, 19 DB Rptr 6 (
Page 22 and 23:
Cite as In re Dobie, 19 DB Rptr 6 (
Page 24 and 25:
Cite as In re Botta, 19 DB Rptr 10
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Cite as In re Henricksen, 19 DB Rpt
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Cite as In re Koblegarde, 19 DB Rpt
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Cite as In re Cumfer, 19 DB Rptr 27
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Cite as In re Ryan, 19 DB Rptr 41 (
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Cite as In re Summer, 19 DB Rptr 57
Page 74 and 75:
Cite as In re Rich, 19 DB Rptr 60 (
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Cite as In re Ames, 19 DB Rptr 66 (
Page 82 and 83:
Cite as In re Ames, 19 DB Rptr 66 (
Page 84 and 85: Cite as In re Ames, 19 DB Rptr 66 (
Page 92 and 93: Cite as In re Trukositz, 19 DB Rptr
Page 102 and 103: Cite as In re Steele, 19 DB Rptr 87
Page 110 and 111: Cite as In re Knappenberger, 19 DB
Page 112 and 113: Cite as In re Scharfstein, 19 DB Rp
Page 120 and 121: Cite as In re Casey, 19 DB Rptr 105
Page 122 and 123: Cite as In re Casey, 19 DB Rptr 105
Page 124 and 125: Cite as In re Genna, 19 DB Rptr 109
Page 130 and 131: Cite as In re Davis, 19 DB Rptr 116
Page 132 and 133: Cite as In re Davis, 19 DB Rptr 116
Page 136 and 137: Cite as In re Crews, 19 DB Rptr 122
Page 138 and 139: Cite as In re Coggins, 19 DB Rptr 1
Page 140 and 141: Cite as In re Leisure, 19 DB Rptr 1
Page 142 and 143: Cite as In re Shinn, 19 DB Rptr 128
Page 148 and 149: Cite as In re Nester, 19 DB Rptr 13
Page 154 and 155: Cite as In re Bowles, 19 DB Rptr 14
Page 164 and 165: Cite as In re Gregory, 19 DB Rptr 1
Page 166 and 167: Cite as In re Gregory, 19 DB Rptr 1
Page 168 and 169: Cite as In re Lebenbaum, 19 DB Rptr
Page 174 and 175: Cite as In re DenHartigh, 19 DB Rpt
Page 180 and 181: Cite as In re Monson, 19 DB Rptr 16
Page 182 and 183: Cite as In re Monson, 19 DB Rptr 16
Page 184 and 185:
Cite as In re Hendrick, 19 DB Rptr
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Cite as In re Goyak, 19 DB Rptr 179
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Cite as In re Matthews, 19 DB Rptr
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Cite as In re Kay, 19 DB Rptr 200 (
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Cite as In re Foley, 19 DB Rptr 205
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Cite as In re Langford, 19 DB Rptr
Page 228 and 229:
Cite as In re Langford, 19 DB Rptr
Page 230 and 231:
Cite as In re Tuttle, 19 DB Rptr 21
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Cite as In re Andersen, 19 DB Rptr
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Cite as In re Jackson, 19 DB Rptr 2
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Cite as In re Richardson, 19 DB Rpt
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Cite as In re Lancefield, 19 DB Rpt
Page 264 and 265:
Cite as In re Lancefield, 19 DB Rpt
Page 266 and 267:
Cite as In re Simcoe, 19 DB Rptr 25
Page 268 and 269:
Cite as In re Simcoe, 19 DB Rptr 25
Page 270 and 271:
Cite as In re Damiano, 19 DB Rptr 2
Page 272 and 273:
Cite as In re Damiano, 19 DB Rptr 2
Page 274 and 275:
Cite as In re Oliveros, 19 DB Rptr
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Cite as In re Gibbons, 19 DB Rptr 2
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Cite as In re Lyons, 19 DB Rptr 271
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Cite as In re Marsh, 19 DB Rptr 277
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Cite as In re O’Dell, 19 DB Rptr
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Cite as In re Carreon, 19 DB Rptr 2
Page 314 and 315:
Cite as In re Carreon, 19 DB Rptr 2
Page 316 and 317:
Cite as In re Miller, 19 DB Rptr 30
Page 318 and 319:
Cite as In re Miller, 19 DB Rptr 30
Page 320 and 321:
Cite as In re Derby, 19 DB Rptr 306
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Cite as In re Idiart, 19 DB Rptr 31
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Cite as In re Chase, 19 DB Rptr 322
Page 338 and 339:
Cite as In re Johnson, 19 DB Rptr 3
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Cite as In re Eichelberger, 19 DB R
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Cite as In re Camacho, 19 DB Rptr 3
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Cite as In re White, 19 DB Rptr 343
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Cite as In re Kahn, 19 DB Rptr 351
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Page 372 and 373:
Cite as In re Wilson, 19 DB Rptr 35
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Cite as In re Dickerson, 19 DB Rptr
Page 380 and 381:
Cite as In re Dickerson, 19 DB Rptr
Page 382 and 383:
Cite as In re Peterson, 19 DB Rptr
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 389 and 390:
TABLE OF CASES (References are to t
Page 391 and 392:
Table of Cases In re Jordan, 295 Or
Page 393 and 394:
Table of Cases In re Wyllie, 331 Or
Page 395 and 396:
Table of Rules and Statutes DR 3-10
Page 397 and 398:
Table of Rules and Statutes DR 7-11
Page 399:
TABLE OF BAR RULES OF PROCEDURE (Re
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?