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

Cite as In re Derby, 19 DB Rptr 306 (2005)
seeking counseling to deal with the issues of depression, relationship issues and
interpersonal communication difficulties. He also met with Carol Wilson from the
PLF and adopted some of her suggestions for improving his office procedures and
dealing with procrastination. The Accused continues to work as a sole practitioner,
has reconciled with his wife who has returned as his secretary, and currently limits
his law practice to representing debtors in bankruptcy and related civil matters.
Discussion and Conclusions of Law
First Cause of Complaint
The Accused admits that he violated DR 7-106(A) (disregarding an order or
rule of a tribunal) and DR 6-101(B) (neglect of a legal matter), in his Answer. The
Accused also admitted that he violated DR 7-101(A)(2) (failure to carry out a
contract of employment) in one respect by failing to attend a scheduled hearing. The
Accused was also cited for violating DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice) in the First Cause of Complaint.
The Trial Panel finds that the Bar proved, by clear and convincing evidence,
that the Accused violated all four Disciplinary Rules cited above, in the particulars
alleged. With regard to the failure to carry out a contract of employment, the Trial
Panel finds that the Accused violated that rule not only in failing to appear for one
hearing, but in the overall performance of the contract with the personal
representative of the Bonebrake Estate. There were multiple failures of performance
throughout the two years that the Accused was the lawyer for the personal
representative and the Accused did not take adequate steps to find out how to
perform those duties that he felt unable to perform.
The Accused also acknowledged that his conduct in the Bonebrake Estate was
frustrating to the probate court and Judge Bechtold, although he stopped short of
formally admitting violation of DR 1-102(A). The Trial Panel finds and concludes
that the Bar established by clear and convincing evidence that the Accused violated
this rule, primarily on the testimony of Judge Bechtold. She identified multiple
instances of extraordinary measures taken to try to get the accused to perform his
duties as the lawyer for the Bonebrake Estate. The Accused offered no legitimate
reasons for ignoring the persistent, and potentially helpful, communications from
Judge Bechtold. Harm to the administration of justice can occur when a lawyer
impairs the procedural functioning of a case and causes the court system to spend
considerable time and resources dealing with the Accused’s noncompliance In re
Rhodes, 331 Or 231, 236, 13 P2d 512 (2000).
Second Cause of Complaint
The Accused admitted in his Answer, and we so find, that he failed to respond
to multiple inquiries from the Oregon State Bar relating to the Complaint of Judge
Bechtold received on January 14, 2004, and that his conduct violated DR 1-103(C)
(failure to respond to inquiries in a disciplinary investigation).
311