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

Cite as In re Ryan, 19 DB Rptr 41 (2005)
ORS 9.527(4), which allows for the discipline of a member of the Bar who
is guilty of willful deceit or misconduct in the legal profession.
The Bar contends that the Accused violated DR 3-101(A) and ORS 9.160
when she continued to practice law after the Bar had suspended her for failure to pay
her Professional Liability Fund (PLF) assessment. The Bar further contends that the
Accused violated DR 1-102(A)(3), DR 7-102(A)(5), and ORS 9.527(4) when she
misrepresented her eligibility to practice law by failing to disclose her suspension to
her clients, opposing counsel, and the courts, and for making a false statement in the
sworn statement she submitted in support of her petition for reinstatement.
The Accused admits all but one of the allegations. She admits that she violated
DR 3-101(B) and ORS 9.160 when she practiced law while suspended for failure to
pay her PLF premium. She also admits that she violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and DR
7-102(A)(5) when she made misrepresentations and gave false statements to the Bar
in connection with her petition for reinstatement. The Accused denies she engaged
in willful deceit or misconduct in the legal profession in violation of ORS 9.527(4).
She contends she did not willfully deceive the Bar when she stated in her sworn
statement in support of her petition for reinstatement that she had not engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law during the period of her suspension.
The matter came before the trial panel for hearing on December 7, 8, and 10,
in Lake Oswego, Clackamas County, Oregon. The Bar appeared by and through
Martha Hicks, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and William Bailey, Bar Counsel. The
Accused appeared personally and was represented by Susan Isaacs. At hearing, the
Bar presented testimony from witnesses Lori Lucas, Kathleen Medford, Susan Parks,
Jeff Sapiro, and John Klor. The Accused presented testimony from witnesses Beverly
Lauck, Norman White, Michael Sweeney, Skip Frank, Leesa Orcutt, Montgomery
Cobb, and the Accused. In the course of the hearing, the trial panel received Bar’s
exhibits 1–31, 33, 35–61, and 63–65 and Accused’s exhibits 101–106 into evidence. 1
Findings of Fact
The Accused practices law and maintains a law office in the Cedar Mill area
of Washington County. She has been a member of the Oregon State Bar since 1992.
She is not admitted to practice law in any other state. At the time of the alleged
violations, the Accused had between four and five years’ professional legal
experience. At all times relevant to the accusations at issue, the Accused practiced
law as a sole practitioner.
The Accused chose to pay her 1997 PLF premium by installments. Her second
installment was due no later than by 5:00 p.m., April 10, 1997. It was late. The
1
With regard to Bar Exhibit 52, the following portion of the exhibit were withdrawn
by the Bar and not admitted into evidence: the last paragraph on page 2, the first paragraph
on page 3, the last paragraph on page 5, all of page 6, and the first two and one-half
paragraphs on page 7.
45