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

Cite as In re Cumfer, 19 DB Rptr 27 (2005)
(c) failed to provide McCarvill with a copy of the petition for Supreme
Court review;
(d) failed to provide McCarvill with a copy of the Supreme Court’s order
denying McCarvill’s petition for review; and
(e) failed to communicate with McCarvill.
21.
On June 4, 2003, McCarvill filed a complaint with the Bar concerning the
Accused’s conduct. On June 9, 2003, Disciplinary Counsel’s Office forwarded a copy
of the complaint to the Accused and requested his response by June 30, 2003. On
June 30, 2003, the Accused requested an extension of time until July 15, 2003, to
provide his response. Disciplinary Counsel’s Office granted the request, but the
Accused then failed to provide the response.
22.
On July 22, 2003, Disciplinary Counsel’s Office again requested the Accused’s
response to McCarvill’s complaint by July 31, 2003. The Accused failed to respond,
and on August 20, 2003, the matter was referred to the Local Professional
Responsibility Committee for investigation. On March 10, 2004, Disciplinary
Counsel’s Office requested additional information from the Accused concerning the
McCarvill complaint by March 23, 2004. The Accused did not respond.
23.
In or about December 2000, McCarvill paid the Accused $17,000 for legal
services to be preformed concerning the appeal of the McCarvill Case. In or about
July 2003, the Accused represented to McCarvill that all of the funds McCarvill paid
for legal services had not been used and that he would return the unused funds to
McCarvill. Between about July 2003 and December 2003, McCarvill requested that
the Accused deliver the funds to him. The Accused failed to deliver the funds.
Between about August 2003 and December 2003, McCarvill and his representatives
requested that the Accused deliver McCarvill’s file and the trial court transcripts to
McCarvill’s Federal Public Defender. The Accused failed to deliver McCarvill’s file
and the transcripts as requested.
24.
The Accused admits that the aforesaid conduct constituted failure to fully
respond to the inquiries of the disciplinary authorities; a lawyer self-interest conflict;
neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him; and failure to promptly deliver client funds
and property as requested by the client, in violation of DR 1-103(C), DR 5-101(A),
DR 6-101(B), and DR 9-101(C)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
33