Opinion ID: 835146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the rubeo matter

Text: Shannon Rubeo filed a complaint with the Bar regarding an employment matter that the accused handled for her. After investigating the complaint, the Bar apparently determined that the accused had not violated any disciplinary rules in his handling of Rubeo's employment matter, because it filed no causes of complaint in that regard. The Bar did, however, allege that the accused violated RPC 8.1(a)(2) (failure to respond to lawful requests of disciplinary authority) during the course of the Bar's investigation of the Rubeo complaint. The trial panel found that the accused failed to respond to the Bar's initial request for information and then, after multiple reminders, he responded incompletely. The trial panel further found it noteworthy that, in almost every letter the Bar sent to the Accused in this matter, the Accused was advised that his failure to cooperate with and/or respond to the Bar's requests would be contrary to RPC 8.1(a)(2). Even so, whether the accused's failure to cooperate violated the rule was a close case in the trial panel's view, in part because of the tension that had developed between disciplinary counsel and the accused. On that score, the trial panel, while suggesting that there may have been sufficient blame to go around, specifically found that, had the accused provided a copy of the Rubeo file to the Bar when initially requested, this matter would not now be before us. Given the precipitating role of the accused's initial noncooperation, together with his later incomplete responses to the Bar's inquiries, the trial panel concluded that the accused had failed to respond to a lawful demand for information, in violation of RPC 8.1(a)(2). The accused does not challenge any of the trial panel's findings or conclusions regarding his noncooperation with the Bar's investigation of the Rubeo complaint. Ratherand again, only through statements in his summary of facts and not through direct argumentthe accused asserts that his handling of the Rubeo matter, which involved a fee dispute, never should have been referred to the disciplinary counsel's office, thus suggesting that the Bar's investigation was inappropriate. The fact that Rubeo's complaint, after investigation, was apparently dismissed isat least in and of itselfirrelevant. The accused has neither argued nor demonstrated that Rubeo's complaint to the Bar did not raise at least an arguable complaint of misconduct, one that the Bar had legal authority to investigate. See ORS 9.542 (Board of Governors of the Bar authorized, subject to Supreme Court approval, to adopt rules governing investigations of conduct of attorneys); BR 2.5(b)(1) (if complaint presents sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that misconduct may have occurred, complaint will be referred to Disciplinary Counsel). As this court has noted in past cases, a significant number of complaints against Bar members can be and are resolved at the initial investigatory stage; the Bar's investigation may exonerate a lawyer rather than lead to formal disciplinary proceedings. See generally Haws, 310 Or. at 751, 801 P.2d 818. Full and timely responses to Bar investigatory requests are in the interests of individual Bar members, as well as the collective membership of the Bar and the public generally. See id. (lawyer's failure to promptly and fully respond to client's complaint to Bar burdens and delays disciplinary process in general). In the absence of any claim or demonstration by the accused that the Bar's investigatory request was not a lawful one, we agree with the trial panel that the accused's conduct in the Rubeo matter violated RPC 8.1(a)(2). [10]