Case ID: or_334/html/0261-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Submitted on the record April 17,
    accused disbarred June 13, 2002
    In re Complaint as to the Conduct of WILLIAM T. RHODES, Accused.
    
    (OSB No. 00-35; SC S49269)
    47 P3d 897
    Jane E. Angus, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, and James M. Pippin, Bar Counsel, Lake Oswego, filed the brief for the Oregon State Bar.
    No appearance contra.
    
    PER CURIAM
   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.