In re Complaint as to the Conduct of Berg

Oregon Supreme Court

In re Complaint as to the Conduct of Berg

554 P.2d 509, 276 Or. 383, 1976 Ore. LEXIS 574

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 30, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 554 P.2d 509 (In re Complaint as to the Conduct of Berg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Complaint as to the Conduct of Berg, 554 P.2d 509, 276 Or. 383, 1976 Ore. LEXIS 574 (Or. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a disciplinary proceeding against Joseph A. Berg, Jr., of Coquille. The Oregon State Bar accused Berg of eight charges of unethical conduct. The trial committee found Berg guilty of three of the charges and not guilty of the other charges.

The review board examined the record of the proceedings before the trial committee and found the accused guilty of five of the eight charges of misconduct and not guilty of the other three.

The charges involved generally gross procrastination and neglect in handling the legal affairs entrusted to him by his clients, but, more seriously, with representing to the clients that he was taking care of their affairs when such representations were patently false. In some instances he permitted the statute of limitations to run against his clients’ claims, did not inform those clients that the claims were barred, but still assured his clients that their claims were receiving his attention and would be settled or tried.

In one or more instances he informed his clients that he had filed actions on their claims when, in fact, he had not done so. He personally paid one client $1,500 in settlement of her malpractice claim against him and his insurance company paid $3,500 to settle the claim of another client.

All of the claims involved procrastination and neglect and wilfully deceiving his clients as to the status of their affairs. We have carefully reviewed the record and agree with the review board. The accused was guilty of five of the charges and not guilty as to the other three.

The trial committee recommended that the accused be suspended from the practice of law for one year and thereafter until he has made application for reinstatement and demonstrates that he is then ethically fit to resume the practice of law and that if he is reinstated [386]*386that he be placed on probation for an additional period of three years. The review board concurred in the recommendation of the trial committee. We also concur in the recommendation and order that the accused be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year from the date of our mandate and thereafter until he has demonstrated he can resume the ethical practice of law and that if he is reinstated that he be placed on probation for an additional period of three years.

The Oregon State Bar shall have a judgment against the accused for its costs and disbursements incurred in prosecuting this proceeding.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is a disciplinary proceeding against Joseph A. Berg, Jr., of Coquille. The Oregon State Bar accused Berg of eight charges of unethical conduct. The trial committee found Berg guilty of three of the charges and not guilty of the other charges.

The review board examined the record of the proceedings before the trial committee and found the accused guilty of five of the eight charges of misconduct and not guilty of the other three.

The charges involved generally gross procrastination and neglect in handling the legal affairs entrusted to him by his clients, but, more seriously, with representing to the clients that he was taking care of their affairs when such representations were patently false. In some instances he permitted the statute of limitations to run against his clients’ claims, did not inform those clients that the claims were barred, but still assured his clients that their claims were receiving his attention and would be settled or tried.

In one or more instances he informed his clients that he had filed actions on their claims when, in fact, he had not done so. He personally paid one client $1,500 in settlement of her malpractice claim against him and his insurance company paid $3,500 to settle the claim of another client.

All of the claims involved procrastination and neglect and wilfully deceiving his clients as to the status of their affairs. We have carefully reviewed the record and agree with the review board. The accused was guilty of five of the charges and not guilty as to the other three.

The trial committee recommended that the accused be suspended from the practice of law for one year and thereafter until he has made application for reinstatement and demonstrates that he is then ethically fit to resume the practice of law and that if he is reinstated [386]*386that he be placed on probation for an additional period of three years. The review board concurred in the recommendation of the trial committee. We also concur in the recommendation and order that the accused be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year from the date of our mandate and thereafter until he has demonstrated he can resume the ethical practice of law and that if he is reinstated that he be placed on probation for an additional period of three years.

The Oregon State Bar shall have a judgment against the accused for its costs and disbursements incurred in prosecuting this proceeding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

554 P.2d 509, 276 Or. 383, 1976 Ore. LEXIS 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-complaint-as-to-the-conduct-of-berg-or-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack