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

Cite as In re Goyak, 19 DB Rptr 179 (2005)
in Standards § 5.11 and that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to
practice.
Drawing together the duties violated, the Accused’s mental state, and the
injury caused by his conduct, the ABA Standards indicate that a period of suspension
is appropriate in this case.
F. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
“Aggravating factors” are considerations that increase the degree of discipline
to be imposed. Standards, § 9.22. The aggravating factors properly attributable, to
the Accused in this case are:
(1) The Accused acted with a dishonest or selfish motive. Standards,
§ 9.22(b).
(2) The Accused engaged in a pattern of misconduct. Standards, § 9.22(c).
(3) The Accused committed multiple offenses, Standards, § 9.22(d).
(4) The Accused had substantial experience in the practice of law, having
been admitted to the bar in 1966. Standards, § 9.22(i).
The Standards also recognize “mitigating factors.” The mitigating factors
properly attributable to the Accused are as follows:
(1) The Accused has no prior disciplinary record. Standards, § 9.32(a).
(2) The Accused enjoys a good reputation in the legal community.
Standards, § 9.32(g).
(3) These disciplinary proceedings have been delayed. Standards, § 9.32(j).
On the issue of delay, the panel notes that a significant portion of the delay
is attributable to the Accused. While the Bar received the complaint about the
Accused’s conduct in March 2000, he failed for five months to provide the
information requested of him, resulting in an August 29, 2000, referral of the matter
to an LPRC. Thereafter, when the Accused’s case was returned to Disciplinary
Counsel’s Office for further investigation, the Accused delayed producing his bank
records for over a year, with the result that the Bar was required to subpoena them
before it could determine whether formal charges were justified. Because a significant
portion of the delay in this case is attributable to the Accused, the panel gives the
delay in this proceeding little weight as a mitigating factor.
G. Oregon Case Law
Oregon case law also suggests that a period of suspension is appropriate in this
case.
As for the Accused’s violation of DR 1-102(A)(2), there is precedent in
Oregon for disciplining a lawyer for writing bad checks. Although In re Smith, 241
Or 542, 407 P2d 643 (1965), involved some aggravating factors not present here, the
190