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

Cite as In re Cumfer, 19 DB Rptr 27 (2005)
(f)
(g)
(h)
failed to communicate with the court;
failed to monitor the McCarvill Case; and
failed to take action to protect McCarvill’s appeal rights.
17.
On or about May 28, 2003, McCarvill discovered that the Court of Appeals
had affirmed the decision of the trial court and had entered an appellate judgment.
On May 29, 2003, McCarvill filed a motion for immediate recall of appellate
judgment for the purpose of seeking review, motion for extension of time to file
petition for review, and motion for the appointment of counsel, copies of which were
served on the Accused. On June 25, 2003, the court’s appellate legal counsel
requested that the Accused, within 14 days, file a response to McCarvill’s allegations
and to advise the court if the Accused was willing to represent McCarvill for the
purpose of filing a petition for Supreme Court review of the Court of Appeals’
decision. The Accused failed to file a response to McCarvill’s allegations.
18.
On July 1, 2003, the Supreme Court granted McCarvill’s motion for relief
from default, and granted him an extension of time until August 31, 2003, to file a
petition for review. The court took no action on McCarvill’s motion to recall the
appellate judgment and reinstate the appeal, and held in abeyance McCarvill’s motion
for appointment of counsel. Thereafter, the Accused continued his representation of
McCarvill, without making full disclosure to and obtaining McCarvill’s consent to
his continued representation, when the exercise of his professional judgment on
behalf of McCarvill was or reasonably may have been affected by his own financial,
business, property, or personal interests.
19.
In or about July 2003, the Accused notified McCarvill that he would file a
petition for Supreme Court review of the decision of the Court of Appeals. On July
10, 2003, the Accused filed a petition for review. The Accused failed to provide
McCarvill with a copy of the petition or to notify McCarvill that he had filed a
petition for Supreme Court review. On October 2, 2003, the Supreme Court filed an
order denying review of the Court of Appeals’ decision in the McCarvill Case, and
on November 17, 2003, filed an order dismissing McCarvill’s motion for appointment
of counsel as moot.
20.
Between about July 10, 2003, and November 17, 2003, the Accused:
(a) failed to provide McCarvill with a copy of the Court of Appeals’
decision;
(b) failed to provide McCarvill with a copy of the appellate judgment;
32