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

Cite as In re O’Dell, 19 DB Rptr 287 (2005)
as a result of lawyer neglect can constitute actual injury under Standards); In re
Schaffner, 325 Or 421, 426–427, 939 P2d 39 (1997); In re Arbuckle, 308 Or 135,
140, 775 P2d 832 (1989).
The Accused’s failure to cooperate with the Bar’s investigation of his conduct
caused actual harm to both the legal profession and to the public because he delayed
the Bar’s investigation and, consequently, the resolution of the complaints against
him. In re Schaffner II, supra, 325 Or at 427; In re Miles, 324 Or 218, 222, 923 P2d
1219 (1996); In re Haws, 310 Or 741, 753, 801 P2d 818 (1990).
D. Aggravating Factors. Aggravating factors include:
1. Prior disciplinary offenses. Standards, § 9.22(a). This factor refers to
offenses that have been adjudicated prior to imposition of the sanction in the current
case. In re Jones, 326 Or 195, 200, 951 P2d 149 (1997). The Accused received a
reprimand in August 2002 for violations of DR 5-101(A) (personal interest conflict)
and DR 6-101(B) (neglect of a legal matter). In re O’Dell, 16 DB Rptr 219 (2002).
The Accused was also suspended for three years in October 2004 for violations of
DR 6-101(B) (neglect of a legal matter), DR 9-101(A) (failure to deposit or maintain
client funds in trust), DR 9-101(C)(3) (failure to account for client funds), DR
9-101(C)(4) (failure to promptly return requested client property), and DR 1-103(C)
(failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation). In re O’Dell, 18 DB Rptr 233
(2004).
2. A pattern of misconduct. The Accused’s transgressions have occurred
over a substantial period of time. Standards, § 9.22(c).
3. Multiple offenses. Standards, § 9.22(d).
4. Substantial experience in the practice of law. The Accused has been a
lawyer in Oregon since 1989. Standards, § 9.22(i).
E. Mitigating Factors. Mitigating factors include:
1. Absence of a dishonest or selfish motive. Standards, § 9.32(b).
2. The Accused was experiencing difficulties with alcoholism at the time
of some of the conduct in these proceedings. The Accused has also reported having
problems with depression. Standards, § 9.32(c).
30.
Combining the factors of duty, mental state, and injury, the Standards provide
that a suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly fails to perform
services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client, or when a
lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury or potential injury to a
client. Standards, § 4.42. A suspension is also generally appropriate when a lawyer
knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession
295