Title: In re Cue
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S50607
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: December 26, 2003

Filed: December 26, 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of
RONALD CUE,
Accused.
(OSB 02-132, 02-133; SC S50607)
    En Banc
    On review of the decision of a trial panel of the
Disciplinary Board.
    Submitted on the record December 3, 2003.
    Jane E. Angus, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Lake Oswego,
filed the brief for the Oregon State Bar.  With her on the brief
was Richard D. Adams, Bar Counsel. 
    No appearance contra.
    PER CURIAM
    The accused is disbarred.
         PER CURIAM
         In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, the Oregon
State Bar (Bar) alleged that the accused violated the following: 
Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule (DR) 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation); DR 1-103(C) (failing to cooperate
with disciplinary investigation); DR 6-101(A) (providing
incompetent representation to client); DR 6-101(B) (neglecting
legal matter entrusted to lawyer); DR 7-101(A)(2) (failing to
carry out contract entered into with client for professional
services); DR 9-101(A) (failing to deposit client funds in trust
account); and DR 9-101(C)(3) (failing to maintain complete
records of client funds in possession of lawyer and to render
appropriate accounts to client regarding funds).  
         In September 2002, the Bar filed a formal complaint
against the accused alleging violations of the disciplinary rules
cited above in two unrelated matters.  The accused answered the
complaint, and a trial panel of the Disciplinary Board held a
hearing in April 2003.  At the hearing, the accused admitted all
material facts that the Bar had alleged.  The accused indicated
that he believed that he had an undiagnosed mental or emotional
problem that caused him to procrastinate, and he requested that
the trial panel leave the record open for 30 days to allow him to
obtain and submit the results of a medical evaluation.  The trial
panel agreed to do so.  One day before the 30-day period expired,
the accused requested a one-week extension of time, which the
trial panel granted.  The accused failed to submit any medical
evaluation and submitted no other document or filing to the trial
panel after the request for an extension of time.  Thereafter,
the trial panel issued an opinion concluding that the accused
violated each of the disciplinary rules cited above and that the
accused should be disbarred.
         On de novo review of the record, we agree. (1)
         The accused is disbarred.
1. 	A discussion of the accused's acts of misconduct would not benefit the public, the parties,
or the bar.