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

Cite as In re Bowles, 19 DB Rptr 140 (2005)
represented to Kubbo that he was in the process of recovering the fees and costs. At
the time, the Accused knew that the time to file the statement had passed; that he had
not filed the statement for costs and attorney fees with the court; and as a result, he
could not recover the costs and attorney fees from the landlord.
10.
On or about February 26, 2004, Kubbo filed a complaint with the Bar
concerning the Accused’s conduct. On March 3, 2004, Disciplinary Counsel’s Office
forwarded a copy of the complaint to the Accused and requested his response and the
production of certain documents by March 24, 2004. The Accused did not respond.
On March 31, 2004, the Bar received a facsimile transmission from the Accused
concerning Kubbo’s complaint. The Accused failed to deliver the documents the Bar
requested. The Accused represented to the Disciplinary Counsel’s Office that he had
performed substantially more work on the FED Case than the fee Kubbo paid; he
told Kubbo that he had missed the period to file for recovery of fees and costs; and
he thought opposing counsel dismissed the case a day later than the FED Case was
actually dismissed as an explanation for why he failed to timely prepare and file the
statement for costs and attorney fees. The representations were misleading and not
true. The Accused knew they were misleading and not true at the time he made them.
11.
On or about March 31, 2004, Disciplinary Counsel’s Office notified the
Accused that he was required to deliver the requested documents and a signed
response to Bar’s inquiry to the Bar. The Accused did not respond. On April 6, 2004,
Disciplinary Counsel’s Office again requested the Accused’s complete response to
the Bar’s inquiry and the delivery of the documents by April 13, 2004. The Accused
did not respond. On April 14, 2004, Disciplinary Counsel’s Office requested the
Accused’s response to certain questions and again asked that he deliver the
documents that had been requested. The Accused did not respond. On April 29, 2004,
Disciplinary Counsel’s Office again requested the Accused’s response to questions
and the production of documents by May 5, 2004. The Accused did not respond.
12.
While the subject of a disciplinary investigation, the Accused failed to fully
and truthfully respond to inquiries from and cooperate with the Disciplinary
Counsel’s Office, which is empowered to investigate or act on the conduct of
lawyers.
13.
The Accused admits that the aforesaid conduct constitutes conduct involving
misrepresentation; failure to fully and truthfully respond to the inquiries of the
disciplinary authorities; charging or collecting an illegal or clearly excessive fee;
failure to maintain a lawyer trust account; and failure to deposit and maintain client
143