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

Cite as In re Hendrick, 19 DB Rptr 170 (2005)
Court Action in violation of the automatic stay. On or about March 3, 2000, the
Board’s lawyers, on behalf of the Board, filed an answer and counterclaim against
the Koppensteins in the State Court Action. On or about August 1, 2000, the Board’s
lawyers, on behalf of the Board, filed a motion for summary judgment concerning
the Koppensteins’ claims in the State Court Action. Under ORCP 47, the
Koppensteins were required to file their response to the motion within 21 days.
15.
Before the state court scheduled the hearing on the motion for summary
judgment, the court called the Accused and the Board’s lawyers to determine their
availability. Thereafter, the court scheduled a hearing on the motion for summary
judgment for August 21, 2000. The Accused received notice of the scheduled hearing
date. The Accused did not file a response to the Board’s motion for summary
judgment on or before August 21, 2000.
16.
On August 21, 2000, the Accused’s co-counsel appeared for the Accused at
the hearing on the Board’s motion for summary judgment. The lawyer asked that the
hearing be rescheduled, and that the Accused be allowed until September 6, 2000,
to file a response to the Board’s motion for summary judgment. The court granted
the requests and rescheduled the hearing to September 7, 2000.
17.
The Accused states that he considered for the first time on or about
August 31, 2000 that the Koppensteins’ claims were part of the bankruptcy estate and
subject to the control of the bankruptcy trustee and bankruptcy court; and that the
provisions of the automatic stay, 11 USC §362, prohibited actions against the
Koppensteins. The Accused then filed a Notice of Filing Bankruptcy and Automatic
Stay in the State Court Action, for the first time giving notice to the Board’s lawyers
and the state court of the Koppensteins’ bankruptcy case.
18.
In or about November 2000, the bankruptcy trustee asked the state court to
defer action in the State Court Action. In or about May 2001, the bankruptcy trustee
filed notice of intent to abandon the Koppensteins’ claims in the State Court Action.
On or about August 8, 2001, the state court granted the Board’s motion for summary
judgment and entered a judgment of dismissal of the State Court Action.
19.
The Accused admits that he failed to provide the legal knowledge, skill,
thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for representing the Koppensteins
and that his conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of
DR 1-102(A)(4) and DR 6-101(A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Upon
174