10.05.2014 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Cite as In re Miller, 19 DB Rptr 302 (2005)<br />

STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE<br />

Mikel R. Miller, attorney at law (hereinafter “the Accused”), and the <strong>Oregon</strong><br />

<strong>State</strong> <strong>Bar</strong> (hereinafter “the <strong>Bar</strong>”) hereby stipulate to the following matters pursuant<br />

to <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>State</strong> <strong>Bar</strong> Rule of Procedure 3.6(c).<br />

1.<br />

The <strong>Bar</strong> was created and exists by virtue of the laws of the <strong>State</strong> of <strong>Oregon</strong><br />

and is, and at all times mentioned herein was, authorized to carry out the provisions<br />

of ORS Chapter 9, relating to the discipline of lawyers.<br />

2.<br />

The Accused was admitted by the <strong>Oregon</strong> Supreme Court to the practice of<br />

law in <strong>Oregon</strong> on October 1, 1991, and has been a member of the <strong>Oregon</strong> <strong>State</strong> <strong>Bar</strong><br />

continuously since that time, having his office and place of business in Deschutes<br />

County, <strong>Oregon</strong>.<br />

3.<br />

The Accused enters into this Stipulation for Discipline freely and voluntarily.<br />

This Stipulation for Discipline is made under the restrictions of <strong>Bar</strong> Rule of<br />

Procedure 3.6(h).<br />

4.<br />

On August 12, 2005, the <strong>State</strong> Professional Responsibility <strong>Board</strong> authorized<br />

formal disciplinary proceedings against the Accused for alleged violation of DR<br />

6-101(B) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The parties intend that this<br />

stipulation set forth all relevant facts, violations, and the agreed-upon sanction as a<br />

final disposition of this proceeding.<br />

Facts<br />

5.<br />

On May 12, 2004, Thaddeus Stacy consulted the Accused about potential tort<br />

claims Stacy believed he might have against the <strong>State</strong> of <strong>Oregon</strong>. After interviewing<br />

Stacy regarding the claims, the Accused declined to pursue Stacy’s claims on a<br />

contingency fee basis but the Accused agreed to file the tort notice required by ORS<br />

30.275 so that any such cause of action Stacy might have against the <strong>State</strong> would be<br />

preserved while Stacy determined whether to proceed with those claims on his own<br />

or with another lawyer.<br />

6.<br />

Stacy inquired of the Accused about various matters on a semi-regular basis<br />

over the following months and asked the Accused about the tort claim notice on at<br />

least one occasion. The Accused assured Stacy that the notice would be timely filed.<br />

303

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!