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

Cite as In re Gibbons, 19 DB Rptr 265 (2005)
3. The Accused was cooperative in the investigation of the matter.
Standards, § 9.32(e).
4. The Accused was criminally prosecuted for his unlawful conduct and
upon entry of a no-contest plea the criminal matter was dismissed after the Accused
complied with certain court-mandated conditions. Standards, § 9.32(k).
14.
The ABA Standards provide that disbarment is generally appropriate when a
lawyer has engaged in serious criminal conduct a necessary element of which
includes intentional interference with the administration of justice, false swearing,
misrepresentation; the distribution of controlled substances; or the intentional killing
of another. Standards, § 5.11. Where the criminal conduct does not contain the
elements listed in Standards § 5.11, but the conduct seriously adversely reflects on
the lawyer’s fitness to practice, suspension is recommended. Standards, § 5.12.
Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in any other
conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness. Standards, § 5.13.
The Accused’s misdemeanor conduct was not serious criminal conduct.
However, the unauthorized destruction of the lock, the breaking of the seal, and the
entry into the Peano home at the direction of the Accused reflects adversely on his
fitness to practice law. Since the evidence is insufficient to suggest that the Accused
intended anything other than to secure Peano’s property, the conduct does not
seriously adversely reflect on his fitness. The Accused’s conduct is mitigated by the
fact that he has suffered other consequences in the criminal justice system and by his
lack of any prior history of discipline. Standards, § 9.32(a), (k).
Oregon lawyers who have engaged in criminal conduct that was not serious
but that reflected adversely on fitness to practice law have received a public
reprimand. See In re Kumley, 335 Or 639, 75 P3d 432 (2003) (reprimand when
lawyer committed criminal conduct in violation of ORS 9.160 and ORS 162.075);
In re Flannery, 334 Or 224, 47 P3d 891 (2002) (lawyer who committed criminal act
by submitting an application for renewal of his driver’s license using false address
information reprimanded when he had suffered other penalties and had no prior
record of discipline).
15.
Consistent with the Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that the
Accused shall be publicly reprimanded for violation of DR 1-102(A)(2).
16.
This Stipulation for Discipline is subject to review by Disciplinary Counsel of
the Oregon State Bar and to approval by the State Professional Responsibility Board
269