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

Cite as In re Coggins, 19 DB Rptr 124 (2005)
March order, but did respond to the orders that followed. Held: The case at hand is
not like the usual reciprocal discipline case in that the Tenth Circuit order is, by
itself, insufficient to establish that the Accused’s conduct in the Tenth Circuit also
violated an Oregon disciplinary rule. First, there is no evidence showing that the
Accused’s conduct prejudiced the Tenth Circuit proceedings or the client’s
substantive interests in those proceedings. Second, the Accused’s decision to forgo
a response to the Tenth Circuit’s first order was undertaken with the good-faith belief
that the Accused’s law partner would either submit, or had submitted, a sufficient
explanation to the Tenth Circuit. The Bar’s recommendation for reciprocal discipline
is denied.
125