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

Cite as In re Ames, 19 DB Rptr 66 (2005)
E. Mitigating Factors. Mitigating factors include:
1. Absence of a prior disciplinary record. Standards, § 9.32(a).
2. Absence of a dishonest or selfish motive. Standards, § 9.32(b).
3. Personal or emotional problems. Standards, § 9.32(c). The Accused was
experiencing personal or emotional difficulties during part of the period when he
failed to respond to his clients in that his father became seriously ill, resulting in the
Accused being absent from his office a considerable amount.
37.
The Standards provide that a suspension is generally appropriate when a
lawyer knowingly improperly handles client property. Standards, § 4.12. A
suspension is also appropriate when a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for
a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client, or engages in a pattern of
neglect and causes injury or potential injury to a client. Standards, § 4.42. Finally,
a suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct
that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession and causes injury or potential
injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. Standards, § 7.2.
38.
Oregon case law also suggests that a lengthy suspension is appropriate. See
In re Parker, 330 Or 541, 9 P3d 107 (2000) (four-year suspension for knowing
neglect, including failing to respond to client messages, and knowing failure to
respond to Bar inquiries in four matters); In re Schaffner II, supra (two-year
suspension for single violations of DR 6-101(B), DR 9-101(C)(4), and DR 1-103(C)
when prior discipline for similar misconduct); In re Chandler, 306 Or 422, 760 P2d
243 (1988) (two-year suspension for neglect of five client matters, three violations
of current DR 9-101(C)(4)), and substantially refusing to cooperate with Bar
authorities (DR 1-103(C))). See also In re Barrow, 13 DB Rptr 126 (1999) (two-year
suspension for multiple disciplinary rules in multiple matters when lawyer
experienced mental disability or chemical dependency during relevant period of time).
39.
Consistent with the Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that the
Accused shall be suspended for two years for violations of DR 6-101(B) (seven
counts), DR 7-101(A)(2), DR 9-101(C)(3), DR 9-101(C)(4) (five counts), and DR
1-103(C) (eight counts), the sanction to be effective upon approval by the Supreme
Court.
76