In re Complaint as to the conduct of Glenn
This text of 653 P.2d 990 (In re Complaint as to the conduct of Glenn) 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.
Opinion
[74]*74MEMORANDUM OPINION
In July 1981, the Oregon State Bar filed a formal disciplinary complaint against the accused. Pursuant to Section 37.1 of the Rules of Procedure (Relative to Admission, Discipline, Resignation and Reinstatement), the accused executed a Stipulation for Discipline, which stipulation was accepted by the Board of Governors of the Bar.1 The Disciplinary Review Board reviewed the matter and recommended that the stipulated disposition of this matter be accepted.
[75]*75By stipulation, the accused and the Bar agreed that the accused violated two disciplinary rules:
1. DR 9-102(B)(3). As a result of representation of his client, the accused was paid $1500 by his client in February 1980, at which time the client was indebted to the accused in the amount of $887.50 for past legal services. In March 1980, the client requested that the accused provide her with an itemized accounting of the charges and expenses incurred in connection with the accused’s representation of her. The accused did not comply with the request of his client until June 10, 1980. He admits that he violated Disciplinary Rule 9-102(B)(3), which requires that a lawyer maintain complete records of all funds of a client coming into possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to the client regarding them.
2. DR 6-101(A)(3). Following an agreement by the accused and an opposing lawyer to enter into a stipulation settling a pending domestic relations matter for his client, the accused failed to prepare the stipulation (as he had agreed to do) and failed to respond to inquiries from his client and the opposing lawyer in respect thereof for a period in excess of three months. The accused acknowledges that he violated Disciplinary Rule 6-101 (A) (3), which states that a lawyer shall not “[n]eglect a legal matter entrusted to him.”
Pursuant to Section 37.1(e) of the Rules of Procedure, we reviewed the Stipulation for Discipline and the written review and recommendations of the Disciplinary Review Board. We approve the stipulation and accept the recommendations, except as noted below. This opinion shall serve as a public reprimand to the accused for his conduct.
In addition to recommending acceptance of the Stipulation for Discipline and imposing a public reprimand upon the accused, the Disciplinary Review Board recommended that the accused be required to reimburse his former client for the costs to her in obtaining a second lawyer to resolve her problems with the accused. We do not reach the merits of this recommendation because the recommendation goes beyond the stipulated form of discipline agreed to by the Bar and the accused. We decline to impose this aspect of the discipline recommended by the Disciplinary Review Board.2
[76]*76We award costs and disbursements to the Bar, which costs and disbursements shall be fixed in the same manner as the procedure described in Rule 11.05, Rules of Appellate Procedure. At the time the amount can be fixed pursuant to that procedure, we shall enter an order fixing the amount and ordering the accused to pay that amount to the Bar. In Re Heath, 292 Or 562, 567, 640 P2d 617 (1982).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
653 P.2d 990, 294 Or. 72, 1982 Ore. LEXIS 1285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-complaint-as-to-the-conduct-of-glenn-or-1982.