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

Cite as In re Shinn, 19 DB Rptr 128 (2005)
E. Mitigating Factors. The following mitigating circumstances are present:
1. Absence of a prior disciplinary record. Standards, § 9.32(a).
2. Absence of a dishonest or selfish motive. Standards, § 9.32(b).
3. Cooperative attitude toward the proceedings. Standards, § 9.32(e).
4. Character or reputation. Standards, § 9.32(g).
5. Remorse. Standards, § 9.32(m).
14.
The Standards provide that reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer
negligently engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession
and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.
Standards, § 7.3. Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly
engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession and causes
injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. Standards, § 7.2.
15.
Because the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances,
a public reprimand is the more appropriate sanction. In re Peters, 15 DB Rptr 184
(2001) (lawyer with no prior disciplinary history who violated duties he owed to the
profession in two matters was reprimanded).
16.
Consistent with the Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that the
Accused shall be publicly reprimand for violation of DR 2-110(A)(1) and DR
2-110(A)(2).
17.
This Stipulation for Discipline is subject to review by Disciplinary Counsel of
the Oregon State Bar and to approval by the SPRB. If approved by the SPRB, the
parties agree the stipulation is to be submitted to the Disciplinary Board for
consideration under the terms of BR 3.6.
EXECUTED this 9th day of February 2005.
/s/ Michael R. Shinn
Michael R. Shinn
OSB No. 73270
132