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

Cite as In re Rich, 19 DB Rptr 60 (2005)
Sanction
14.
The Accused and the Bar agree that in fashioning an appropriate sanction in
this case, the Disciplinary Board should consider the ABA Standards for Imposing
Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter “Standards”). The Standards require that the Accused’s
conduct be analyzed by considering the following factors: (1) the ethical duty
violated; (2) the lawyer’s mental state; (3) the actual or potential injury; and (4) the
existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
A. Duty Violated. The Accused violated his duty to act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing Torgerson and to avoid conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice. Standards, §§ 4.4, 6.1.
B. Mental State. The Accused acted negligently when he inadvertently
failed to assure that Notice of Representation was filed with the court. His conduct
became knowing after he discovered that the Notice of Representation had not been
filed with the court, but did not take steps to remedy the situation.
C. Injury. The court and O’Grady sustained actual injury because the show
cause hearing had to be rescheduled due to the Accused’s failure to appear.
Torgerson also sustained actual injury in that the resolution of his legal matter was
delayed by the Accused’s conduct.
D. Aggravating Factors. The following aggravating circumstances exist:
1. Prior disciplinary offenses. In 1999, the Accused was reprimanded for
violating DR 5-105(E) (current client conflict of interest). In re Rich, 13 DB Rptr 67
(1999); Standards, § 9.22(a).
2. Multiple offenses. Standards, § 9.22(d).
3. Substantial experience in the practice of law as the Accused has been
licensed to practice law in Oregon since 1979. Standards, § 9.22(i).
E. Mitigating Factors. The following mitigating circumstances exist:
1. Absence of a dishonest or selfish motive. Standards, § 9.32(b).
2. Cooperative attitude toward the proceedings. Standards, § 9.32(e).
15.
The Standards provide that a reprimand is appropriate when a lawyer is
negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and
causes injury or potential injury to a client. Standards, § 4.43. A reprimand is also
appropriate when a lawyer negligently engages in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice and causes injury or potential injury to a party to the legal
proceeding, or causes an adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal
proceeding. Standards, § 6.13.
63