Title: In Re Miller

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

801 P.2d 814 (1990)
310 Or. 731
In re Complaint As to the Conduct of John R. MILLER, Accused.
OSB 86-99/SC S36625.

Supreme Court of Oregon.
Argued and Submitted April 10, 1990.
Decided November 26, 1990.
Reconsideration Denied January 15, 1991.
M. Chapin Milbank, Salem, argued the cause and filed the briefs for the accused.
Susan K. Roedl, Asst. Disciplinary Counsel, Oregon State Bar, Lake Oswego, argued the cause and filed the brief for the Oregon State Bar.
Before PETERSON, C.J., CARSON, GILLETTE, VAN HOOMISSEN, FADELEY, and UNIS, JJ., and GRABER, J. Pro Tem.
PER CURIAM.
John R. Miller is a lawyer charged with unethical conduct. The charges against the accused stem from his representation of the personal representative in the administration of an estate. The charges include violations of: (1) former DR 1-102(A)(5) (currently DR 1-102(A)(4)) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice);[1] (2) former DR 6-101(A)(3) (currently DR 6-101(B)) (neglecting a legal matter);[2] (3) former DR 1-102(A)(4) (currently DR 1-102(A)(3)) (conduct involving dishonesty);[3] (4) DR 7-102(A)(5) (knowingly making a false statement of law or fact);[4] and (5) DR 2-106(A) (entering agreement for illegal or clearly excessive fees).[5] We review de *815 novo. The Trial Panel's findings and conclusions follow:
We agree with and adopt the Trial Panel's findings and conclusions, with one *817 exception. The Trial Panel found the accused not guilty of the Third Cause  making false representations to the Marion County Circuit Court. We find that the accused made false representations to the Marion County Circuit Court in a 1983 letter.
On November 28, 1983, Marion County Presiding Judge Val Sloper wrote this letter to the accused:
On December 22, 1983, the accused replied to Judge Sloper:
In fact, the Federal Employee Group Life Insurance Company wrote to the accused on six occasions between August 18, 1980 and July 20, 1982, requesting a completed claim application for death benefits. The accused sent in the completed materials on August 10, 1982. The insurance proceeds were received in February 1983, over 10 months before the accused's letter was written.
In his letter to Judge Sloper, the accused stated that obtaining the life insurance proceeds was "[t]he most difficult problem in the scope of this estate." The accused intended that Judge Sloper conclude that the nonreceipt of the insurance proceeds resulted from some unspecified problems incident to the claim against the insurance company. In truth, the only problem in obtaining the life insurance proceeds was the accused's inexcusable delay in completing the applications.
We find the accused's December 22, 1983 letter to be a knowing and false representation to the circuit court, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(3) and DR 7-102(A)(5).
We next decide the appropriate sanction. This court previously has stated that, on appropriate occasions, we will look to Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, American Bar Association, 1986, for guidance in disciplining lawyers. In re Recker, 309 Or. 633, 639, 789 P.2d 663 (1990). Section 4.4 of those Standards provides in part:
Section 6.1 of the Standards provides in part:
Concerning violations of Chapter 7 of the Disciplinary Rules, section 7.2 of the Standards provides:
We find that the accused's persistent lack of diligence resulted in a significant delay in closing the estate and distributing estate assets to those who were entitled to them. That delay caused injury to his client. In addition, the accused knowingly made false representations to the circuit court and to his client that caused potential injury to the estate. Also, he charged and attempted to collect an excessive fee.
The accused has been disciplined on two earlier occasions. In In re Miller, 287 Or. 621, 601 P.2d 789 (1979), he was reprimanded for failing to advise persons making security deposits in criminal cases that the monies would be refunded to the defendant, and not to them, and further, for failing to advise persons making security deposits on behalf of a defendant that the monies could be used to pay his attorney fees, thereby increasing the fee over what he would have obtained as a court-appointed lawyer. We found that he had "engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." 287 Or. at 629, 601 P.2d 789. In In re Miller, 1 DB Rptr 186 (1986), the accused was reprimanded for undertaking multiple representation of clients with conflicting interests without first having obtained the clients' consent, in violation of DR 5-105(A)-(C).
The conduct of the accused in the instant case alone justifies a long suspension. Adding to it the serious misconduct involved in the two previous disciplinary cases, we conclude that the accused should be disbarred.
Accused disbarred. Costs to Oregon State Bar.
[1]  DR 1-102(A)(4) provides:

"(A) It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
"* * * * *
"(4) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."
[2]  DR 6-101(B) provides:

"A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer."
[3]  DR 1-102(A)(3) provides:

"It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
"* * * * *
"(3) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."
[4]  DR 7-102(A)(5) provides:

"In the lawyer's representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:
"* * * * *
"(5) Knowingly make a false statement of law or fact."
[5]  DR 2-106(A) provides:

"A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee."