Title: In re McCarthy
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S060882
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: January 16, 2014

Filed:  January 16, 2014 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 
 
In Re: 
Complaint as to the Conduct of 
STEVEN M. MCCARTHY, 
Accused. 
 
(OSB 11-17; SC S060882) 
 
 
En Banc 
 
 
On review from a decision of a trial panel of the Disciplinary Board. 
 
 
Argued and submitted November 8, 2013. 
 
 
Conrad E. Yunker, Salem, argued the cause for the accused.  Steven M. McCarthy, 
McCarthy Law Offices, Independence, filed the brief on his own behalf. 
 
 
Susan Roedl Cournoyer, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Tigard, argued the cause 
and filed the brief for the Oregon State Bar. 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
 
 
The accused is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 90 days, 
commencing 60 days from the filing of this decision. 
 
 
 
 
1 
 
 
PER CURIAM 
1 
 
 
In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, the Oregon State Bar (Bar) alleged 
2 
and the trial panel found that, in the course of representing the plaintiff in a civil action 
3 
involving claims under the federal Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement 
4 
Procedures Act, the accused violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC):  
5 
 RPC 1.1 (failure to provide a client with competent representation). 
6 
 
7 
 RPC 1.4(a) (failure to comply with a client's reasonable requests for information 
8 
and to keep the client reasonably informed concerning the status of the client's 
9 
legal matter).  
10 
 
11 
 RPC 1.4(b) (failure to explain matters to a client to the extent reasonably 
12 
necessary to allow the client to make informed decisions). 
13 
 
14 
 RPC 1.15-1(c) (2008) (failure to deposit fees paid in advance by a client into a 
15 
lawyer trust account and withdraw them only as earned, or as expenses are 
16 
incurred). 
17 
 
18 
The trial panel concluded that the appropriate sanction was a 90-day suspension from the 
19 
practice of law.  The accused sought review under Bar Rule of Procedure (BR) 10.3. 
20 
 
 
We review de novo.  ORS 9.536(2); BR 10.6.  Based on our review of the 
21 
record, we conclude that the accused knowingly violated RPC 1.1, RPC 1.4(a), RPC 
22 
1.4(b), and RPC 1.15-1(c) (2008).  An explanation of the facts giving rise to this 
23 
proceeding, or our application of the law to those facts, would not benefit the bench, the 
24 
bar, or the public.  We further conclude that a 90-day suspension is the appropriate 
25 
sanction. 
26 
 
 
The accused is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 90 days, 
27 
commencing 60 days from the filing of this decision. 
28