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

Cite as In re Lyons, 19 DB Rptr 271 (2005)
not file the state petition within one year after the conviction became final and thus
toll the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations.
Violations
13.
The Accused acknowledges that he failed to apply the legal knowledge, skill,
thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to represent Singh in the
postconviction relief petition. The Accused admits that his conduct violated
DR 6-101(A).
14.
The Accused acknowledges that he failed to maintain his file and any records
of his representation of Singh. Because he lost his records and files from Singh’s
postconviction relief case, he did not promptly deliver to Singh upon request Singh’s
files for use in the federal habeas corpus litigation. The Accused admits that his
conduct violated DR 9-101(C)(4).
Sanction
15.
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 duties owed to his client to
understand relevant legal doctrines or procedures (Standards, § 4.5) and to preserve
client property (Standards, § 4.1). The most important ethical duties a lawyer owes
are those to his or her clients. Standards, at 5.
B. Mental State. The Accused was negligent in determining whether he
was competent to handle Singh’s matter and was negligent in dealing with Singh’s
file. “Negligence” is the failure of a lawyer to heed a substantial risk that
circumstances exist or that a result will follow, which failure is a deviation from the
standard of care that a reasonable lawyer would exercise in the situation. Standards,
at 6.
C. Injury. Injury can be either actual or potential under the Standards. In
re Williams, 314 Or 530, 840 P2d 1280 (1992). The Accused caused actual injury
to Singh in that Singh’s writ of habeas corpus was denied as untimely under the
AEDPA. The Accused also caused actual injury to Singh by losing Singh’s files,
which were not available for review by Singh’s subsequent counsel, who sought to
274