Reporter - Oregon State Bar

Cite as 5 DB R ~tr 59 (1991) 67
4.
In August 1988, Hevel asked the Accused to file a formal complaint in the
Packard-Bettencourt matter. The Accused neglected to do so. On October 27,
1988, Hevel wrote to the Accused and instructed him to file the complaint.
5.
By letters dated December 16 and 29, 1988, Hevel demanded that the
Accused immediately return Packard-Bettencourt's file materials. The Accused
failed to respond to these demands to return the file materials until April, 1989.
On or about December 29, 1988, the Accused was discharged from further
representation of Packard-Bettencourt.
Hevel, on behalf of Packard-Bettencourt, was entitled to the prompt return
of the file from the Accused.
The Accused failed to respond to any of the correspondence sent to him by
Hevel. The Accused failed to perform any work on the case and failed to file a
formal complaint on behalf of Sharmayne Packard-Bettencourt.
8.
By neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, the Accused violated DR 6-
101 (8) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
9.
By failing to promptly deliver his client's property to Hevel, the Accused
violated DR 9-101 (B)(4).
For its SECOND CAUSE OF COMPLAINT against the Accused, the Oregon
State Bar alleges: