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

Cite as In re Bowles, 19 DB Rptr 140 (2005)
funds in a lawyer trust account, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(3), DR 1-103(C), DR
2-106(A), and DR 9-101(A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Vincent Matter
(Case No. 04-130)
Fact and Violations
14.
Prior to October 2002, Long Dang Bui (hereinafter “Landlord”) rented
residential premises located in Portland, Oregon Tami Vincent (hereinafter “Vincent”)
and Shaun Jordan (hereinafter “Jordan”). In and after October 2002, Vincent and
Jordan withheld rent from the Landlord on grounds that the Landlord had failed to
maintain the premises in a habitable condition and failed to repair the premises after
notice thereof. On or about November 4, 2002, the Landlord filed a Forcible Entry
and Detainer action against Vincent and Jordan, Long Dang Bui v. Shawn Jordan and
Tami Vincent, Multnomah County Circuit Court Case No. 02FO17196 (hereinafter
“FED Case”).
15.
On or about November 4, 2002, Vincent and Jordan (hereinafter collectively
“Clients”) retained the Accused to represent their interests to defend the FED and
to assert claims for damages and other relief against the Landlord for the Clients. On
or about November 12, 2002, the Accused filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaim for the Clients in the FED Case. On or about November 29, 2002, the
Accused filed an Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim for the
Clients in the FED Case.
16.
On or about December 13 and 18, 2002, the court held a hearing concerning
the FED Case. On December 20, 2002, the court filed its decision and entered
judgment in favor of the Clients, awarding them possession of the residential
premises, a diminution of past rent, credit for past paid rent, and costs and attorney
fees. In and between November 4, 2002, and about December 18, 2002, the Accused
failed to provide the Clients with copies of all pleadings and court notices; failed to
communicate and timely communicate with health and building inspectors concerning
the residential premises; failed to subpoena the appropriate health and building
inspectors for the trial of the FED Case; and failed to take action to assert claims to
terminate the Clients’ tenancy of the premises and for the award of other damages,
or to refer the Clients to counsel who would do so.
17.
Under ORCP 68, the Accused was required to file and serve a statement for
costs and attorney fees not later than 14 days after entry of the judgment in the FED
144