In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Rhodes

Oregon Supreme Court

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Rhodes

47 P.3d 897, 334 Or. 261, 2002 Ore. LEXIS 384

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedJune 13, 2002

DocketOSB 00-35; SC S49269

StatusPublished

This text of 47 P.3d 897 (In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Rhodes) 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 Rhodes, 47 P.3d 897, 334 Or. 261, 2002 Ore. LEXIS 384 (Or. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

*263 PER CURIAM

In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, the Oregon State Bar (the Bar) alleged that the accused violated the following Disciplinary Rules: Disciplinary Rule (DR) 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice); DR 1-103(0 (failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigation); and DR 7-102(A)(5) (knowingly making false statements of law or fact).

On March 14, 2001, the Bar served the accused in person with the formal complaint and notice to answer. The accused failed to file an answer or appear. Accordingly, a trial panel of the Disciplinary Board entered a default order. In a subsequent sanctions hearing, the trial panel deemed the Bar’s allegations of misconduct to be true and concluded that the accused should be disbarred.

Under the facts of this proceeding, an exhaustive discussion of the accused’s multiple acts of misconduct would not benefit the bench, the Bar, or the public. We agree with the trial panel that the accused should be disbarred.

The accused is disbarred, effective 60 days from the date of the filing of this decision.

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

*263 PER CURIAM

In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, the Oregon State Bar (the Bar) alleged that the accused violated the following Disciplinary Rules: Disciplinary Rule (DR) 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice); DR 1-103(0 (failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigation); and DR 7-102(A)(5) (knowingly making false statements of law or fact).

On March 14, 2001, the Bar served the accused in person with the formal complaint and notice to answer. The accused failed to file an answer or appear. Accordingly, a trial panel of the Disciplinary Board entered a default order. In a subsequent sanctions hearing, the trial panel deemed the Bar’s allegations of misconduct to be true and concluded that the accused should be disbarred.

Under the facts of this proceeding, an exhaustive discussion of the accused’s multiple acts of misconduct would not benefit the bench, the Bar, or the public. We agree with the trial panel that the accused should be disbarred.

The accused is disbarred, effective 60 days from the date of the filing of this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 P.3d 897, 334 Or. 261, 2002 Ore. LEXIS 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-complaint-as-to-the-conduct-of-rhodes-or-2002.