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

Cite as In re Trukositz, 19 DB Rptr 78 (2005)
(D) Between about March 1999 and December 22, 2000, the Accused:
a. Did not investigate Mejia’s claim;
b. Did not contact the adverse party or the adverse party’s insurance
carrier concerning Mejia’s claim;
c. Did not file a lawsuit concerning Mejia’s claim;
d. Did not monitor the statute of limitations as it concerned Mejia’s claim;
e. Did not request and obtain an agreement to toll the statute of
limitations; and
f. Did not take other action to protect, prepare, prosecute or resolve
Mejia’s claim.
(E) On or about December 22, 2000, the statute of limitations expired and
barred Mejia’s claim. On or about January 2001, the Accused discovered that the
statute of limitations had expired. The Accused orally notified Mejia that she had a
possible claim against him.
(F) Thereafter, the Accused continued to represent Mejia when the exercise
of his professional judgment on behalf of his client was or reasonably might be
affected by his own financial, business, property, or personal interests without
obtaining Mejia’s consent after full disclosure.
(G) After disclosing to Mejia that her claim was barred by the statute of
limitations, the Accused represented to her that he would notify his insurance
company; he would give his insurance company Mejia’s name, address, and
telephone number; and his insurance company would contact her and pay her
damages.
2. Mejia was credible in all her testimony, and where her testimony
differed from the testimony of the Accused she is to be believed.
3. The Accused is not credible.
3.1 The Accused notified Mejia that she had a malpractice claim
against him in April or May of 200l.
3.2 Exhibit 7 was not prepared and sent in the ordinary course of the
Accused’s business.
83