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

Cite as In re Dobie, 19 DB Rptr 6 (2005)
7.
The Accused failed to maintain or preserve for a period of at least five years
after his representation of Ms. Moffett concluded, adequate financial records
concerning her matter, including banking records, accountings, statements of
disbursements, and other financial records. Thus, when Mr. Long asked the Accused
to provide Ms. Moffett with complete financial records and a complete accounting
of the funds he had received from her, the Accused was unable to do so.
Violations
8.
The Accused admits that, by engaging in the conduct described in this
stipulation, he violated DR 9-101(C)(3) and DR 9-101(C)(4).
Sanction
9.
The Accused and the Bar agree that in fashioning an appropriate sanction in
this case, the Disciplinary Board should consider the ABA Standards for Imposing
Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter “Standards”). The Standards require that the Accused’s
conduct be analyzed by considering 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. The Accused violated his duty to his client to preserve
and keep records of client property. Standards, § 4.1.
B. Mental State. The Accused’s mental state was negligent in that he
deviated from the standard of care that a reasonable lawyer would have exercised in
this situation. Standards, at 7.
C. Injury. The client was exposed to potential injury by the Accused’s
failure to keep proper records concerning her property. Standards, at 7.
D. Aggravating Factors. Aggravating factors to be considered include:
1. Prior disciplinary offense. Standards, § 9.22(a). On December 23, 1997,
a trial panel found the Accused guilty of violating DR 6-101(B) and DR 7-101(A)(2)
in one matter, and DR 9-101(C)(3) in another. In re Dobie, 12 DB Rptr 19 (1998).
(The Accused maintains that the deficiencies in his recordkeeping in the present case
predated the discipline imposed upon him in connection with this earlier case, and
also maintains that those deficiencies have since been addressed.)
2. Substantial experience in the practice of law. Standards, § 9.22(i).
8