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

Cite as In re Marsh, 19 DB Rptr 277 (2005)
3. The Accused was inexperienced in the practice of law. Standards,
§ 9.32(f).
4. At times, the Accused suffered a serious physical medical condition, as
described above, which required ongoing medical treatment and the Accused’s
absence from the office for periods of time. Standards, § 9.32(h).
5. The Accused is remorseful. Standards, § 9.32(m).
29.
The Standards provide that suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer
knows or should know that he or she is dealing improperly with client property and
causes injury or potential injury to a client. Standards, § 4.12. Suspension is also
generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client,
or engages in a pattern of neglect; or when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client; and
causes injury or potential injury to a client. Standards, §§ 4.42, 4.62. When a lawyer
knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional,
and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system,
suspension is also the appropriate disposition. Standards, § 7.2.
30.
Case law is in accord. See, e.g., In re Gresham, 318 Or 162, 864 P2d 360
(1993) (91 days’ suspension for violation of DR 6-101(A), DR 6-101(B), and DR
1-102(A)(4)); In re LaBahn, 335 Or 357, 67 P3d 381 (2003) (60 days’ suspension
for violation of DR 6-101(B)). See also In re Meyer, 328 Or 220, 970 P2d 647
(1999) (one-year suspension for violation of DR 6-101(B) when lawyer failed during
a period of only about two months to take constructive action to advance or protect
the client’s legal position in a domestic relations matter); In re Rudie, 294 Or 740,
662 P2d 321 (1983) (seven-month suspension when a lawyer violated former DR
6-101(A)(2) (current DR 6-101(A)), former DR 6-101(A)(3) (current DR 6-101(B)),
and DR 7-101(A)(2)); In re Butler, 324 Or 69, 921 P2d 401 (1996) (one-year
suspension for violation of DR 6-101(B) and DR 1-102(A)(3)); In re Eakin, 334 Or
238, 48 P3d 147 (2002) (60 days’ suspension for violation of DR 9-101(A) and DR
9-101(C)(3)); In re Barnett, 14 DB Rptr 5 (2000) (60 days’ suspension for violation
of DR 2-106(A), DR 6-101(B), DR 9-101(A), DR 9-101(C)(3), DR 9-101(C)(4), and
DR 5-105(C)).
31.
Consistent with the Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that the
Accused shall be suspended for nine months, effective September 21, 2005, or three
days after the date of the order approving this stipulation, whichever is later.
285