Case Title: In re Roller

Citation: 

Docket Number: S064359

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2017-03-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
234	
March 9, 2017	
No. 17
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE 
STATE OF OREGON
In re Complaint as to the Conduct of
DALE MAXIMILIANO ROLLER,
OSB No. 091897,
Accused.
(OSB 1406, 14142, 14143, 1537; SC S064359)
En Banc
On review of the decision of a trial panel of the Disciplinary 
Board, dated July 11, 2016.
Submitted on the record on January, 12, 2017.
No appearance for the Oregon State Bar.
No appearance contra.
PER CURIAM
The accused is suspended from the practice of law for four 
years, commencing 60 days from the date of this decision.
Case Summary: The Oregon State Bar brought a disciplinary action against 
the accused lawyer, alleging ten violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
arising out of his representation of three different clients. A trial panel of the 
Disciplinary Board found that the accused had committed all but two of the 
charged violations and concluded that the accused should be suspended from the 
practice of law for four years. Held: Because the accused did not file an opening 
brief and neither party challenged any aspect of the trial panel’s order, the Court 
concluded that the accused was not entitled to any different consideration by the 
Court than had he not sought review at all, and it affirmed the decision of the 
trial panel.
The accused is suspended from the practice of law for four years, commencing 
60 days from the date of this decision.
Cite as 361 Or 234 (2017)	
235
	
PER CURIAM
	
In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, the Oregon 
State Bar charged Dale Maximiliano Roller (the accused) 
with multiple violations of the Oregon Rules of Professional 
Conduct (RPC). A trial panel of the Disciplinary Board con-
ducted a hearing, found that the accused had violated a 
number of those rules, and determined that the appropriate 
sanction was suspension from the bar for a period of four 
years. We affirm.
	
The charges arise out of three separate client mat-
ters. As to the first matter, the Bar alleged that the accused, 
in his representation of Gary R. Games, violated RPC 1.5(a) 
(prohibiting charging or collecting an illegal or clearly exces-
sive fee) and RPC 1.5(c)(3) (prohibiting entering into a fee 
agreement to charge a nonrefundable fee without putting 
that agreement in writing and having the client sign it) by 
charging an excessive fee and entering into a fee agreement 
without adequate disclosures; that he violated RPC 1.15-1(d) 
(requiring lawyers to notify client of and promptly deliver 
funds received in which the client has an interest) and RPC 
8.4(a)(3) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 
deceit, or misrepresentation) by converting third-party 
funds to his own use; and that he violated RPC 8.1(a)(1) 
(prohibiting knowingly making a false statement of mate-
rial fact in a disciplinary proceeding) and RPC 8.1(a)(2) 
(prohibiting failure to respond to a lawful demand for infor-
mation from a disciplinary authority) by making a false 
statement of material fact to the Bar in its investigation of 
the Games matter and by failing to comply with the Bar’s 
request to provide a copy of the fee agreement.
	
The second matter arose out of the accused’s rep-
resentation of Wendy Henson and Sasa Silajdzic. In that 
matter, the Bar alleged that the accused violated RPC 1.3 
(prohibiting neglect of a legal matter), RPC 1.4(a) (requiring 
lawyer to keep client reasonably informed about the status of 
a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for 
information), and RPC 1.16(d) (requiring lawyer, upon ter-
mination of representation, to take reasonable steps to pro-
tect client’s interests) by failing to take substantive action 
on the clients’ case for three years, failing to respond to their 
236	
In re Roller
inquiries about the status of the matter, and, after termina-
tion of the representation, failing to respond to requests to 
return the clients’ funds.
	
Finally, as to the third matter, the Bar alleged that 
the accused, in his representation of Benjamin Kendell, vio-
lated RPC 1.3, RPC 1.4(a), and RPC 8.4(a)(4) (prohibiting 
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice) 
by failing to appear at an October 2014 bench trial on a 
criminal matter in Oregon City Municipal Court, failing to 
communicate with the court or the client after a pretrial 
conference was then set for November 2104, failing to appear 
at the November conference, failing to communicate with 
the court or the client after a hearing was set for December 
2014, and failing to appear at the December hearing.
	
A hearing was held before a trial panel of the 
Disciplinary Board in May 2016. Following the hearing, the 
trial panel found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the 
accused had violated all of the foregoing rules except for the 
charged violations of RPC 1.5(a) and RPC 1.5(c)(3) in the 
Games matter. The trial panel determined that the appro-
priate sanction was a four-year suspension from the practice 
of law.
	
The accused timely requested review by this court. 
However, he failed to file an opening brief as required by 
ORAP 11.25(2)(a) and Bar Rule of Procedure (BR) 10.5(c).1 In 
response, the Bar submitted a letter under ORAP 11.25(3)(b) 
requesting that the matter be submitted on the record with-
out briefing or oral argument.2 See In re Hartfield, 349 Or 
108, 112, 239 P3d 992 (2010) (“ORAP 11.25(3) entitles the 
Bar, in cases like the present one [in which the accused 
	
1  ORAP 11.25(2)(a) provides:
“A petition concerning a disciplinary proceeding * 
* 
* shall be filed with the 
Administrator, together with an opening brief, with proof of service on all 
parties, within 28 days after written notice * 
* 
* of the court’s receipt of the 
record of the proceedings before the trial panel[.]”
BR 10.5(c) provides that “[a] petition filed under this rule shall be accompanied 
by a brief.”  The accused filed a petition, but it was not accompanied by an opening 
brief.
	
2  ORAP 11.25(3)(b) provides that, if a lawyer is required to file a brief under 
BR 10.5(b), the Bar shall “[s]ubmit a letter stating that it wishes the matter sub-
mitted to the court on the record without briefing or oral argument.”
Cite as 361 Or 234 (2017)	
237
fails to submit an opening brief], to elect to submit a letter 
requesting submission of the case to the court without brief-
ing or oral argument.”)
	
As this court further explained in Hartfield, 
although our review of these matters is de novo under ORS 
9.536(2) and BR 10.6, in this circumstance the court is “free 
to circumscribe the extent of its review due to the absence of 
briefing or argumentation challenging the order on review.” 
349 Or at 111. See also In re Oh, 350 Or 204, 252 P3d 325 
(2011) (following Hartfield). Thus, where review of a trial 
panel’s decision has been requested, but neither party has 
filed a brief, “we ordinarily will affirm the order of the trial 
panel inasmuch as no party has raised an argument chal-
lenging the trial panel’s order.” Oh, 350 Or at 207; Hartfield, 
349 Or at 112 (to same effect). As this court stated in Oh, 
when a lawyer fails to frame any challenge to the trial pan-
el’s decision, he or she is not entitled to any different consid-
eration by this court than if he or she had not sought review 
at all. Oh, 350 Or at 207. As in Oh and in Hartfield, we have 
no basis for disagreeing with the trial panel’s decision in 
this case, and we therefore determine that the decision of 
the trial panel should be affirmed.
	
The accused is suspended from the practice of law 
for four years, commencing 60 days from the date of this 
decision.