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

Cite as In re Langford, 19 DB Rptr 211 (2005)
D. Aggravating Factors. “Aggravating factors” are any considerations that
justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed. Standards, § 9.22. The
Accused was admitted to practice in 1988 and has substantial experience in the
practice of law. Standards, § 9.22(i).
E. Mitigating Factors. “Mitigating factors” are any considerations that
justify a decrease in the degree of discipline to be imposed. Standards, § 9.32. The
Accused has no prior record of formal discipline. Standards, § 9.32(a). She did not
act with dishonest motives. Standards, § 9.32(b). The Accused acknowledged and
fully disclosed the nature and extent of her conduct to the disciplinary authorities,
and has cooperated in the investigation and in resolving this matter. Standards,
§ 9.22(e). The Accused is remorseful. Standards, § 9.32(m).
8.
The Standards provide that absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances,
suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly reveals information
relating to the representation of a client not otherwise lawfully permitted to be
disclosed, and this disclosure causes injury or potential injury to a client. Standards,
§ 4.22. Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently reveals
information relating to representation of a client not otherwise lawfully permitted to
be disclosed and this disclosure causes injury or potential injury to a client.
Standards, § 4.23.
Oregon case law is in accord. See, e.g., In re Schroeder, 15 DB Rptr 1 (2001)
(reprimand for violation of DR 4-101(B)(1), DR 4-101(B)(2), and DR 7-101(A)(3));
In re Scannell, 8 DB Rptr 99 (1994) (reprimand for violation of DR 4-101(A) and
DR 5-105(C)).
9.
Consistent with the Standards and Oregon case law, the Bar and the Accused
agree that the Accused shall be publicly reprimanded for violation of DR 4-101(B)(1)
and DR 4-101(B)(2) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
10.
This Stipulation for Discipline has been reviewed by the Disciplinary Counsel
of the Oregon State Bar, the sanction was approved by the State Professional
Responsibility Board, and the stipulation shall be submitted to the Disciplinary Board
for consideration under the terms of BR 3.6.
214