Reporter - Oregon State Bar

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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

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

Cite as 5 DB R ~tr 1 (1991 7 The four facts set forth in the ABA Standards are addressed below. 1. Ethical Dutv Violated: The ethical duty violated was one of charging an excessive fee for recovery of PIP benefits. 2. Mental <strong>State</strong>, Interit, Knowledae or Nealiaence: Mr. Taylor can certainly be said to have knowingly taken the excessive fee in the PIP matter. The Trial Panel recognized that the testimony was that the fee agreement upon which the fee was taken was originally signed relative to recovery for the worker's compensation [claim] and was later applied to the PIP matter. Also, it is recognized that Orion Insurance Company, while having previously in negotiating with Mr. Taylor on the issue of compensation to other persons involved in the same accident, had treated Mr. Wiemals as covered for purposes of liability on the insurance policy, the insurance company could have contested his claim for PIP benefits. The fact is, however, when the insurance company readily paid, Mr. Taylor proceeded with the fee agreement and took the excessive fee. 3. Iniurv: Charging of an excessive fee does involve injury to client, the legal system and the profession. 4. Aaaravatina or Mitiaatina the Circumstances: The evidence would indicate that the fee taken by Mr. Taylor was not a source of dispute with his client and his client was satisfied with the financial arrangement until a substantial period of time passed. While there was evidence that Mr. Wiemals suffered head injuries in the automobile accident, the evidence did not establish that Mr. Taylor intended to, nor did he, take advantage of any vulnerability in this regard. It is clear that in most cases of single violations of DR 2-106(A) where an excessive fee has been charged, the appropriate disposition is that of a public reprimand. [See In Re: Potts, Trammelland Hannon, 307 Or 57, 778 P2d 7363
8 in re Tavlor (7986); In Re: Hill, 26 7 Or 573, 495 P2d 26 7 ( 7972); In Re: Pederson, 259 Or 429, 486 P2d 7283 (797 7); In Re: White, 7 DB <strong>Reporter</strong> 7 74 /7986).1 It is the judgment of the Trial Panel that R. Scott Taylor shall be publicly reprimanded for violation of .DR 2-106(A). DATED this 22nd day of February, 1991. jsl James W. S~ickerman James W. Spickerman Is1 Thomas E. Wurtz Thomas E. Wurtz /sf Nancie Fadelev Nancie Fadeley
Page 1 and 2: lina Board Reporter Volume 5 Januay
Page 3 and 4: Preface This Reporter contains fina
Page 5 and 6: Justices of the Supreme Court Walla
Page 7 and 8: OREGON STATE BAR DISCIPLINARY BOARD
Page 9 and 10: TABLE OF OPINIONS Volume 5 DB Rptr
Page 11 and 12: TABLE OF DISCIPLINARY RULES AND STA
Page 13 and 14: TABLE OF RULES OF PROCEDURE (BR) ap
Page 15 and 16: Martha Walters In re Daughters ....
Page 17 and 18: 2 in re Tavlor IN THE SUPREME COURT
Page 19 and 20: 4 in re Tavlor received a fee of ei
Page 21: 6 in re Tavlor interest in maximizi
Page 25 and 26: 10 In re Rhodes IN THE SUPREME COUR
Page 27 and 28: 12 In re Rhodes In Re: 1 IN THE SUP
Page 29 and 30: 14 In re Rhodes (4) The Accused's i
Page 31 and 32: 16 In re Rhodes public reprimand. 8
Page 33 and 34: 18 In re Rhodes IN THE SUPREME COUR
Page 35 and 36: 20 In re Rhodes its requests for an
Page 37 and 38: 22 In re Rhodes accountings to PMlL
Page 39 and 40: 24 In re Rhodes 28. The Accused has
Page 41 and 42: 26 In re Rhodes 1. DR 5-104(A) of t
Page 43 and 44: 28 In re Levi IN THE SUPREME COURT
Page 45 and 46: 30 In re Levi In Re: 1 IN THE SUPRE
Page 47 and 48: 32 In re Levi inmates regarding inj
Page 49 and 50: Subscribed and sworn to before me t
Page 51 and 52: 36 In re Levi 2. By failing to advi
Page 53 and 54: 38 In re Levi Executed this 1 5th d
Page 55 and 56: 40 In re Ledwidqe IN THE SUPREME CO
Page 57 and 58: 42 In re Ledwidae 'In Re: IN THE SU
Page 59 and 60: 44 In re Ledwidae This stipulation
Page 61 and 62: 46 In re Ledwidae IN THE SUPREME CO
Page 63 and 64: -? 48 In re Ledwidse . B and pursua
Page 65 and 66: 50 In re Calvert In Re: IN THE SUPR
Page 67 and 68: 52 In re Calvert IN THE SUPREME COU
Page 69 and 70: 54 In re Calvert November 1989, tha
Page 71 and 72: 56 In re Calvert IN THE SUPREME COU
Page 73 and 74:
58 In re Calvert 11. The aforesaid
Page 75 and 76:
60 In re Ehmann IN THE SUPREME COUR
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
64 In re Ehmann the Accused was und
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
68 In re Ehmann 10. Incorporates by
Page 85 and 86:
70 In re Ehmann
Page 87 and 88:
72 In re Dauahters In Re: IN THE SU
Page 89 and 90:
74 In re Dauahters IN THE SUPREME C
Page 91 and 92:
76 In re Dau~hters outstanding bill
Page 93 and 94:
78 In re Dauahters IN THE SUPREME C
Page 95 and 96:
80 In re Dauahters 11. On June 23,
Page 97 and 98:
82 In re Dauahters and pursuant the
Page 99 and 100:
84 In re Schenck IN THE SUPREME COU
Page 101 and 102:
86 In re Schenck 5 \ * --% B In Re:
Page 103 and 104:
88 In re Schenck transaction was a
Page 105 and 106:
90 In re Schenck In Re: 1 IN THE SU
Page 107 and 108:
92 In re Schenck FORMER CLIENT CONF
Page 109 and 110:
SUBJECT MATTER INDEX References are
show all

Reporter - Oregon State Bar

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?