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

Cite as In re Botta, 19 DB Rptr 10 (2005)
Violations
13.
The Accused admits that by engaging in the conduct described in paragraphs
9 through 12 he violated DR 1-102(A)(3), DR 1-102(A)(4), and DR 7-102(A)(5) of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Sanction
14.
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 be candid with the
court and to avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Standards,
§ 6.1.
B. Mental State. The Accused acted intentionally.
C. Injury. The court sustained actual injury in that it relied upon the
Accused’s false representations in deciding how to proceed in the matters before it.
Neither of the Accused’s clients sustained injury.
D. Aggravating Factors. The following aggravating circumstances are
present:
1. Dishonest or selfish motive. Standards, § 9.22(b).
2. Multiple offenses. Standards, § 9.22(d).
E. Mitigating Factors. The following mitigating circumstances are present:
1. Absence of a prior disciplinary record. Standards, § 9.32(a).
2. Personal or emotional problems. At the time, the Accused was suffering
from alcohol dependency, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and chronic
posttraumatic stress disorder. The Accused has abstained from the consumption of
alcohol since February 2004. He has obtained treatment for the above-referenced
conditions and has complied with and continues to comply with the treatment plan
outlined by his doctor. Standards, § 9.32(c).
3. Cooperative attitude toward the proceedings. Standards, § 9.32(e).
4. Inexperience in the practice of law. At the time of the underlying
events, the Accused had been licensed to practice law in Oregon since 2000.
Standards, § 9.32(f).
5. Remorse. Standards, § 9.32(m).
13