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

Cite as In re O’Dell, 19 DB Rptr 287 (2005)
Thomas G. Lees
(Case No. 04-106)
Facts
19.
On May 24, 2002, the Accused was appointed to represent Thomas Lees
(“Lees”) to appeal a criminal conviction. Although the Accused filed an initial brief,
a supplemental brief was necessary and the Accused requested and received court
permission to file a supplemental brief. Thereafter, the Accused did not communicate
with Lees or file a supplemental brief. When the Court of Appeals affirmed Lees’
conviction in May 2003, the Accused failed to inform Lees and failed to file a
petition for review, so that Lees could be eligible for federal relief.
20.
On May 13, 2004, the Oregon State Bar received a complaint from Lees
regarding the Accused’s conduct. On May 18, 2004, Disciplinary Counsel’s Office
forwarded a copy of that complaint to the Accused and requested his response on or
before June 8, 2004. The Accused made no response to the Bar’s inquiry despite an
additional request from Disciplinary Counsel’s Office on June 14, 2004, that he do
so.
Violations
21.
The Accused admits that, by engaging in the conduct described in paragraphs
19 and 20 of this stipulation, he violated DR 6-101(B) (neglect of a legal matter) and
DR 1-103(C) (failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation) of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Angel Yautentzi-Cipriano
(Case No. 05-55)
Facts
22.
On October 14, 2002, the Accused was appointed to take over the
representation of Angel Yautentzi-Cipriano (hereinafter “Yautentzi-Cipriano”) in his
appeal from a murder conviction. The Accused missed the filing deadline for the
opening brief, resulting in a dismissal of the appeal. The Accused thereafter
successfully motioned the court for the dismissal to be vacated and for additional
time to file the opening brief.
292