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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

Cite as In re Carreon, 19 DB Rptr 297 (2005) requirements prior to engaging in such practice in Canada. “Knowledge” is the conscious awareness of the nature or attendant circumstances of the conduct but without the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result. Standards, at 7. “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 standards of care that a reasonable lawyer would exercise in the situation. Standards, at 7. The Accused also knew or should have known that he was dealing improperly with client property, but utilized the funds believing that SEG would ultimately be responsible for his lease obligation. C. Injury. Injury does not need to be actual, but only potential to support the imposition of sanctions. In re Williams, 314 Or 530, 840 P2d 1280 (1992). The Accused caused actual and potential injury to his client. The client was denied the opportunity to challenge the Accused’s use of its funds for payment of the lease judgment. In addition, the BC Rules require proof of malpractice coverage by an applicant as a practitioner of foreign law under BC Rule 2-18. The Accused did not comply with the practitioner of foreign law admissions rule, and did not obtain malpractice coverage for his work on behalf of SEG. D. Aggravating Factors. Aggravating factors include: 1. The Accused utilized client funds for a personal obligation. Standards, § 9.22(b). 2. Multiple offenses. Standards, § 9.22(d). 3. The Accused has substantial experience in the practice of law, having been admitted in Oregon in 1993 and in California in 1987. Standards, § 9.22(i). E. Mitigating Factors. Mitigating factors include: 1. The Accused has no prior history of discipline. Standards, § 9.32(a). 2. The Accused has displayed a cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings. Standards, § 9.32(e). 11. The Standards provide that absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows or should know that he or she is dealing improperly with client funds and causes injury or potential injury to a client. Standards, § 4.12. Suspension is also appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional (i.e., unauthorized practice of law), and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. Standards, § 7.2. 12. Oregon case law is in accord. See, e.g., In re Eakin, 334 Or 238, 258–259, 48 P3d 147 (2002) (60-day suspension when lawyer “should have known” that she was 300
Cite as In re Carreon, 19 DB Rptr 297 (2005) dealing improperly with the trust account, due in part to substantial experience in the practice of law); In re Wyllie, 331 Or 606, 19 P3d 338 (2001) (four-month suspension for violation of DR 9-101(A) and other charges, with prior discipline); In re Starr, 326 Or 328, 952 P2d 1017 (1998) (six-month suspension for improperly withdrawing disputed funds from trust); In re Williams, 314 Or 530, 840 P2d 1280 (1992) (63-day suspension for, among other charges, failing to hold funds in trust pending resolution of dispute). See also In re Jones, 308 Or 306, 779 P2d 1016 (1989) (six-month suspension for unlawful practice); In re Nelson, 17 DB Rptr 41 (2003) (reprimand for unauthorized appearance in Washington bankruptcy); In re Kimmell, 10 DB Rptr 175 (1996) (reprimand for representation of clients in three matters in California while inactive in that state); In re Butler, Or S Ct No S40533 (1993) (90-day suspension for filing an answer to a complaint in Nebraska when he was not authorized to practice law in Nebraska). 13. Consistent with the Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that the Accused shall be suspended for 60 days for violation of DR 3-101(B) and DR 9-101(A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the suspension to be effective October 24, 2005, or three days after this stipulation is approved, whichever is later. 14. This Stipulation for Discipline is subject to review by Disciplinary Counsel of the Oregon State Bar and to approval by the SPRB. If approved by the SPRB, the parties agree the stipulation is to be submitted to the Disciplinary Board for consideration under the terms of BR 3.6. EXECUTED this 9th day of September 2005. /s/ Charles H. Carreon Charles H. Carreon OSB No. 93469 EXECUTED this 23rd day of September 2005. OREGON STATE BAR By: /s/ Amber Bevacqua-Lynott Amber Bevacqua-Lynott OSB No. 99028 Assistant Disciplinary Counsel 301
Page 1:
white text DISCIPLINARY BOARD REPOR
Page 4 and 5:
white text PREFACE This Disciplinar
Page 6 and 7:
white text Justices of the Oregon S
Page 8 and 9:
white text 2005 DISCIPLINARY BOARD
Page 10 and 11:
Cases Reported in Volume 19 In re C
Page 12 and 13:
Cases Reported in Volume 19 In re K
Page 14 and 15:
Cases Reported in Volume 19 In re S
Page 16 and 17:
Cite as In re Klahn, 19 DB Rptr 1 (
Page 18 and 19:
Cite as In re Klahn, 19 DB Rptr 1 (
Page 20 and 21:
Cite as In re Dobie, 19 DB Rptr 6 (
Page 22 and 23:
Cite as In re Dobie, 19 DB Rptr 6 (
Page 24 and 25:
Cite as In re Botta, 19 DB Rptr 10
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Cite as In re Henricksen, 19 DB Rpt
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Cite as In re Koblegarde, 19 DB Rpt
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Cite as In re Cumfer, 19 DB Rptr 27
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Cite as In re Ryan, 19 DB Rptr 41 (
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Cite as In re Summer, 19 DB Rptr 57
Page 74 and 75:
Cite as In re Rich, 19 DB Rptr 60 (
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Cite as In re Ames, 19 DB Rptr 66 (
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Cite as In re Trukositz, 19 DB Rptr
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Cite as In re Steele, 19 DB Rptr 87
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Cite as In re Knappenberger, 19 DB
Page 112 and 113:
Cite as In re Scharfstein, 19 DB Rp
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Cite as In re Casey, 19 DB Rptr 105
Page 122 and 123:
Cite as In re Casey, 19 DB Rptr 105
Page 124 and 125:
Cite as In re Genna, 19 DB Rptr 109
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Cite as In re Davis, 19 DB Rptr 116
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Cite as In re Crews, 19 DB Rptr 122
Page 138 and 139:
Cite as In re Coggins, 19 DB Rptr 1
Page 140 and 141:
Cite as In re Leisure, 19 DB Rptr 1
Page 142 and 143:
Cite as In re Shinn, 19 DB Rptr 128
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Cite as In re Nester, 19 DB Rptr 13
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Cite as In re Bowles, 19 DB Rptr 14
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Cite as In re Gregory, 19 DB Rptr 1
Page 166 and 167:
Cite as In re Gregory, 19 DB Rptr 1
Page 168 and 169:
Cite as In re Lebenbaum, 19 DB Rptr
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Cite as In re DenHartigh, 19 DB Rpt
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Cite as In re Monson, 19 DB Rptr 16
Page 182 and 183:
Cite as In re Monson, 19 DB Rptr 16
Page 184 and 185:
Cite as In re Hendrick, 19 DB Rptr
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Cite as In re Goyak, 19 DB Rptr 179
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Cite as In re Matthews, 19 DB Rptr
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Cite as In re Kay, 19 DB Rptr 200 (
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Cite as In re Foley, 19 DB Rptr 205
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Cite as In re Langford, 19 DB Rptr
Page 228 and 229:
Cite as In re Langford, 19 DB Rptr
Page 230 and 231:
Cite as In re Tuttle, 19 DB Rptr 21
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Cite as In re Andersen, 19 DB Rptr
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Cite as In re Jackson, 19 DB Rptr 2
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Cite as In re Richardson, 19 DB Rpt
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Cite as In re Lancefield, 19 DB Rpt
Page 264 and 265: Cite as In re Lancefield, 19 DB Rpt
Page 266 and 267: Cite as In re Simcoe, 19 DB Rptr 25
Page 268 and 269: Cite as In re Simcoe, 19 DB Rptr 25
Page 270 and 271: Cite as In re Damiano, 19 DB Rptr 2
Page 272 and 273: Cite as In re Damiano, 19 DB Rptr 2
Page 274 and 275: Cite as In re Oliveros, 19 DB Rptr
Page 280 and 281: Cite as In re Gibbons, 19 DB Rptr 2
Page 286 and 287: Cite as In re Lyons, 19 DB Rptr 271
Page 292 and 293: Cite as In re Marsh, 19 DB Rptr 277
Page 302 and 303: Cite as In re O’Dell, 19 DB Rptr
Page 312 and 313: Cite as In re Carreon, 19 DB Rptr 2
Page 316 and 317: Cite as In re Miller, 19 DB Rptr 30
Page 318 and 319: Cite as In re Miller, 19 DB Rptr 30
Page 320 and 321: Cite as In re Derby, 19 DB Rptr 306
Page 330 and 331: Cite as In re Idiart, 19 DB Rptr 31
Page 336 and 337: Cite as In re Chase, 19 DB Rptr 322
Page 338 and 339: Cite as In re Johnson, 19 DB Rptr 3
Page 344 and 345: Cite as In re Eichelberger, 19 DB R
Page 352 and 353: Cite as In re Camacho, 19 DB Rptr 3
Page 358 and 359: Cite as In re White, 19 DB Rptr 343
Page 364 and 365:
Cite as In re White, 19 DB Rptr 343
Page 366 and 367:
Cite as In re Kahn, 19 DB Rptr 351
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Page 372 and 373:
Cite as In re Wilson, 19 DB Rptr 35
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Cite as In re Dickerson, 19 DB Rptr
Page 380 and 381:
Cite as In re Dickerson, 19 DB Rptr
Page 382 and 383:
Cite as In re Peterson, 19 DB Rptr
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 389 and 390:
TABLE OF CASES (References are to t
Page 391 and 392:
Table of Cases In re Jordan, 295 Or
Page 393 and 394:
Table of Cases In re Wyllie, 331 Or
Page 395 and 396:
Table of Rules and Statutes DR 3-10
Page 397 and 398:
Table of Rules and Statutes DR 7-11
Page 399:
TABLE OF BAR RULES OF PROCEDURE (Re
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?