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

Cite as In re Ames, 19 DB Rptr 66 (2005)
to the complaint by July 30, 2003. The Accused made no response until August 5,
2003, when he represented to Disciplinary Counsel’s Office that he would send Zuhk
and Zvereva’s file to the Bar. The Accused did not send the file, and on September
11, 2003, Disciplinary Counsel’s Office requested the Accused to produce Zuhk and
Zvereva’s file and explain why he had not yet sent it to the clients. The Accused
responded to Disciplinary Counsel’s Office on October 8, 2003, but failed to provide
the file or requested explanation. The Accused failed to respond to Disciplinary
Counsel’s Office’s subsequent October 9, 2003, and October 22, 2003, requests for
Zuhk and Zvereva’s file and his explanation of why he had not yet sent it to them.
Violations
11.
The Accused admits that he failed to promptly deliver to the client, as
requested, property in his possession which the client was entitled to receive, and
failed to respond to inquiries from or cooperate with Disciplinary Counsel’s Office,
in violation of DR 9-101(C)(4) and DR 1-103(C).
Gullette Matter
(Case No. 04-39)
Facts
12.
In or about April 2000, the Accused undertook to represent Fred and Barbara
Gullette (hereinafter “the Gullettes”) in litigation against the former tenants and
manager of the Gullettes’ rental property. Between about June 8, 2001, and March
22, 2002, the Accused failed to effect service on the tenants. On March 22, 2002, the
court dismissed the Gullettes’ lawsuit for want of prosecution. Thereafter, until July
22, 2002, when the Gullettes terminated his employment, the Accused took no action
to reinstate their case and took no further substantial action on their case. From early
2002 until July 22, 2002, the Accused failed to communicate with the Gullettes
regarding the status of their case and failed to respond to the Gullettes’ attempts to
contact him.
Violations
13.
The Accused admits that he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him and
failed to communicate with his clients, in violation of DR 6-101(B).
69