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

Cite as In re Monson, 19 DB Rptr 165 (2005)
B. Mental State. “Knowledge” is the conscious awareness of the nature or
attendant circumstances of the conduct but without the conscious objective or purpose
to accomplish a particular result. “Negligence” is the failure to heed a substantial risk
that circumstances exist or that a result will follow, which failure is a deviation from
the standard of care that a reasonable lawyer would exercise in the situation.
Standards, at 7. The Accused knew that he would be automatically suspended on a
date certain if he did not pay his membership fee. The Accused was negligent when
he failed make sure that he had paid his membership fee and failed to realize that he
had not done so.
C. Injury. An injury does not need to be actual, but only potential to
support the imposition of sanctions. In re Williams, 314 Or 530, 840 P2d 1280
(1992). The Accused caused potential injury to his clients. During the time the
Accused was not authorized to practice law, he was not covered by malpractice
insurance. The Accused placed at risk all clients for whom he performed legal
services while he was suspended in the event of malpractice claims against him. The
Accused also caused potential injury to the legal profession. The public judges the
profession by the conduct of its members.
D. Aggravating Factors. Aggravation or aggravating circumstances are any
considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to
be imposed. Standards, § 9.22. Aggravating factors include: multiple offenses,
Standards, § 9.22(d), and substantial experience in the practice of law, Standards,
§ 9.22(i).
E. Mitigating Factors. Mitigation or mitigating circumstances are any
considerations or factors that may justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to
be imposed. Standards, § 9.32. Mitigating factors include: absence of a prior
disciplinary record during his 37 years as a member of the Bar, Standards, § 9.32(a);
absence of dishonest or selfish motives, Standards, § 9.32(b); cooperative attitude
during the investigation of the complaint and in resolving this disciplinary
proceeding, Standards, § 9.32(e); good reputation, Standards, § 9.32(g); and remorse,
Standards, § 9.32(m).
13.
The Standards provide that reprimand is appropriate when a lawyer
negligently engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional,
and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.
Standards, § 7.3.
14.
Consistent with the Standards, the parties agree that the Accused shall be
publicly reprimanded for violation of DR 3-101(B) and ORS 9.160.
168