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

Cite as In re Ames, 19 DB Rptr 66 (2005)
32.
In or around October or November 2003, the Accused undertook to represent
Danhle and Ngocle Pham (hereinafter “Ngocle”) in a personal injury matter resulting
from an automobile accident (hereinafter “auto case”). Danhle and Ngocle delivered
to the Accused a number of documents, including police reports. Thereafter, the
Accused failed to take any significant action on the auto case and failed to respond
to Ngocle’s attempts to contact him. Danhle and Ngocle retained new counsel to
handle the auto case in about July 2004.
33.
Danhle and Ngocle’s new counsel requested their file materials on a number
of occasions, including July 1, 2004, and July 28, 2004. The Accused promised to
deliver the file, but failed to do so.
34.
The Oregon State Bar received a complaint from Pham concerning the
Accused’s conduct on September 8, 2004. On September 15, 2004, Disciplinary
Counsel’s Office forwarded a copy of the complaint to the Accused and requested
his response to it by October 6, 2004. The Accused made no response. On October
8, 2004, Disciplinary Counsel’s Office again requested the Accused’s response to the
complaint by October 15, 2004. The Accused made no substantive response to the
Bar’s inquiry before November 10, 2004, at which time he provided Danhle’s and
Ngocle’s file materials to the Bar.
Violations
35.
The Accused admits that he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him; 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 6-101(B), DR 9-101(C)(4),
and DR 1-103(C).
Sanction
36.
The Accused and the Bar agree that in fashioning an appropriate sanction in
this case, the Supreme Court 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.
74