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

Cite as In re Lebenbaum, 19 DB Rptr 154 (2005)
supplementation. On October 13, 2003, the Accused filed a petition for judicial
review by the Court of Appeals with the State Court Administrator. In and between
December 2003 and August 2004, the Accused filed motions for extensions of time
to file the opening brief. The court granted the requests. On September 6, 2004, the
Court of Appeals filed an order of dismissal and appellate judgment dismissing
Lawrentz’s petition for review for want of prosecution. The court sent a copy of the
order and appellate judgment to the Accused. The Accused received a copy of the
court’s order and appellate judgment on September 8, 2004.
7.
In and between about December 2003 and September 2004, the Accused failed
to complete and file the opening brief; failed to provide Lawrentz with a copy of the
Accused’s motions filed with and correspondence to the court and the court’s notices,
orders and the appellate judgments filed in the case; failed to communicate with and
keep Lawrentz informed concerning the status of his case; and failed to notify
Lawrentz that his petition for review had been dismissed. In and between about
September 2004 and December 2004, the Accused failed to take action to obtain
relief from default and to reinstate Lawrentz’s case; failed to notify Lawrentz that his
case had been dismissed; failed to respond to Lawrentz’s calls and messages; and
failed to provide Lawrentz with a copy of the Accused’s motions and correspondence
to the court, the court’s notices, orders, and the appellate judgments filed in the case.
8.
The Accused admits that the aforesaid conduct constituted neglect of a legal
matter entrusted to a lawyer in violation of DR 6-101(B) of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Sanction
9.
The Accused and the Bar agree that in fashioning an appropriate sanction in
this case, the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter
“Standards”) are considered. The Standards require that the Accused’s conduct be
analyzed by the following factors: (1) the ethical duty violated; (2) the lawyer’s
mental state; (3) the actual or potential injury; and (4) the existence of aggravating
and mitigating circumstances.
A. Duty Violated. In violating DR 6-101(B), the Accused violated a duty
to his client. Standards, § 4.4.
B. Mental State. The Accused’s conduct demonstrates knowledge and
negligence. “Knowledge” is the conscious awareness of the nature or attendant
circumstances of the conduct but without the conscious objective to accomplish a
particular result. “Negligence” is the failure of a lawyer to heed a substantial risk that
circumstances exist or that a result will follow, which failure is a deviation from the
156