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

Cite as In re Idiart, 19 DB Rptr 316 (2005)
4. The Accused has taken steps to rectify the consequences of his conduct
by implementing a reasonable waiting period before contacting prospective clients in
cases involving serious injury or death and has sought additional guidance from the
Bar on this issue. Standards, § 9.32(k).
13.
The ABA Standards provide that a public reprimand is appropriate when a
lawyer negligently engages in conduct that violates a duty to the profession and
causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. Standards,
§ 7.3.
14.
Although Oregon case law offers no specific authority on the timing
considerations relating to communication with prospective clients to solicit
professional employment, lawyers have been publicly reprimanded for other
violations involving communications about their legal services: In re Kimmell, 10 DB
Rptr 175 (1996) (lawyer’s letterhead was misleading when it indicated a California
license when he was an inactive member and ineligible to practice law in
California.); In re Fellows, 9 DB Rptr 197 (1995) (yellow pages advertisement for
referral service was misleading because some referrals were made to lawyer’s
partners or associates and some of lawyers to whom cases might be referred were not
experienced or had not consented to the use of their names.); In re Smith, 9 DB Rptr
79 (1995) (paralegal’s yellow pages advertisement was misleading in that it did not
disclose that customers were required to retain a lawyer’s services and that the
advertisement was for legal services, not merely for the paralegal service). See also
In re Mendez, 10 DB Rptr 129 (1996), in which a lawyer was suspended for 30 days
when he sent direct mail solicitation that was materially misleading. The lawyer’s
solicitation letter described the actions of the potential clients’ former employer as
unlawful when no such investigation or court determination had been made.
15.
Consistent with the Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that the
Accused shall be publicly reprimanded for violation of Oregon RPC 5.3(b), RPC
7.3(b)(1), and RPC 8.4(a)(1). The sanction shall be effective immediately upon
approval by the Disciplinary Board of this Stipulation for Discipline.
16.
This Stipulation for Discipline is subject to review by Disciplinary Counsel
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.
320