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

Cite as In re Cumfer, 19 DB Rptr 27 (2005)
29.
Prior to and between about February 2003 and February 2004, the Accused:
(a) failed to notify Cunningham about the Court of Appeals’ February 5,
2003, decision;
(b) failed to notify Cunningham about the motion for reconsideration of the
Court of Appeals’ February 5, 2003, decision;
(c) failed to notify Cunningham about the Court of Appeals’ June 12, 2003,
decision;
(d) failed to notify Cunningham that the Court of Appeals had filed an
appellate judgment and closed the case;
(e) failed to provide Cunningham with a copy of the Court of Appeals’
decisions and the appellate judgment;
(f) failed to seek an extension of time to file a petition for Supreme Court
review;
(g) failed to file a petition for Supreme Court review;
(h) failed to take action to obtain relief from default and extend the time
to file a petition for Supreme Court review;
(i) failed to respond to Cunningham’s letters and telephone messages;
(j) failed to communicate with Cunningham;
(k) failed to communicate with co-counsel on appeal;
(l) failed to monitor the Cunningham Case; and
(m) failed to take action to protect Cunningham’s appeal rights.
30.
Prior to and between February 2003 and February 2004, the Accused accepted
and continued employment as Cunningham’s lawyer when he knew or it was obvious
that his continued representation would result in violation of a disciplinary rule.
31.
On or about January 21, 2004, Cunningham filed a complaint with the Bar
concerning the Accused’s conduct. On February 5, 2004, Disciplinary Counsel’s
Office forwarded a copy of the complaint to the Accused and requested his response
by February 26, 2004. The Accused did not respond. On March 8, 2004, Disciplinary
Counsel’s Office again requested the Accused’s response to the Cunningham
complaint by March 15, 2004. The Accused did not respond.
35