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

Cite as In re Ryan, 19 DB Rptr 41 (2005)
Accused knew that if she did not pay her PLF assessment on time, she would be
suspended from the practice of law. She intended to pay her assessment on time. It
was by her unintentional error that her payment arrived late to the PLF offices.
The Bar administratively suspended the Accused from the practice of law on
April 11, 1997. See ORS 9.080(2)(a) (authority to require active Bar members to
maintain professional liability insurance). On that date, the Bar sent the Accused by
certified mail a copy of a letter it had sent to the Supreme Court’s Office of Legal
Counsel requesting the Court to delete the Accused’s name from the Court’s roster
of lawyers. Leesa Orcutt, the secretary for the Accused, signed for the Accused’s
copy of the letter on Monday, April 14, 1997. Later that day—in the late afternoon
of April 14, 1997—the Accused personally received the Bar’s suspension letter and
actually learned of her suspension.
The Accused thought she could appeal the suspension or “work something out
with the PLF.” She wrote a letter to the PLF explaining why her payment was late.
The Accused asked the PLF to accept the late payment in lieu of suspension. In the
meantime, she continued to practice law. She believed she was authorized to practice
law while suspended based upon a mistaken belief. She thought that her suspension
was stayed pending its appeal or the negotiation of some alternative disposition in
lieu of suspension.
In response to her inquiries about an appeal or alternative disposition to her
suspension, the Accused was told repeatedly by PLF and Bar officials that there was
no appeal or alternative disposition available for this type of administrative,
nondisciplinary suspension. (Once a Bar member is suspended for delinquency in
payment of a PLF assessment, ORS 9.200(3) requires that the lawyer may be
reinstated to the Bar only upon payment of all required PLF contributions.) On
April 16, 1997, the Accused received a letter from Kathleen Medford, PLF
Assessment Coordinator, returning the late check for the PLF assessment and stating
that on April 15, 1997, Ms. Medford had “left a voice mail message at 2:15 p.m.
today regarding reinstatement procedures. We unfortunately cannot extend the
deadline as you have requested.” The PLF thus denied the Accused’s request that the
PLF accept her late payment in lieu of suspension.
No later than April 16, 1997, the Accused understood that she was suspended
from the practice of law and that in all likelihood the suspension could not be
appealed, stayed or otherwise challenged or alternatively disposed of. Her belief that
there was no available alternative to her suspension was not absolute. She still held
out hope that she could find some way to practice law while an alternative
disposition to her suspension was worked out or while she found some way to appeal
and stay the suspension. While the accused explored these hoped-for-but-unlikely
possibilities, she continued to operate her law practice as usual, meeting with clients,
appearing in court, conferring with opposing counsel. She failed to tell her clients,
opposing counsel or the courts of her suspension.
46