Opinion ID: 1450146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alleged Violation of DR 1-103(C).

Text: The accused was charged with violating DR 1-103(C), which provides: A lawyer who is the subject of a disciplinary investigation shall respond fully and truthfully to inquiries from and comply with reasonable requests of a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon the conduct of lawyers, subject only to the exercise of any applicable right or privilege. A preliminary question must be addressed. This charge was filed after the deposition of the accused was taken on November 4, 1991. The accused refused to answer a number of questions and gave evasive answers to other questions. The accused objected to the admissibility of the deposition on the ground that he had not been given the deposition to examine for correctness. ORCP 39 F. The trial panel sustained the accused's objection to introduction of the deposition on the ground that the accused had not had the opportunity to read and sign the deposition. Depositions taken in Bar proceedings are governed by BR 4.5(b)(2), which provides that [t]he manner of taking depositions shall conform as nearly as practicable to the procedure set forth in the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure. ORCP 39 F provides: (1) When the testimony [of a witness at deposition] is taken by stenographic means, or is recorded by other than stenographic means as provided in subsection C.(4) of this rule, and if any party or the witness so requests at the time the deposition is taken, the recording or transcription shall be submitted to the witness for examination, changes, if any, and statement of correctness. With leave of court such request may be made by a party or witness at any time before trial. (2) Any changes which the witness desires to make shall be entered upon the transcription or stated in a writing to accompany the recording by the party taking the deposition, together with a statement of reasons given by the witness for making them. Notice of such changes and reasons shall promptly be served upon all parties by the party taking the deposition. The witness shall then state in writing that the transcription or recording is correct subject to the changes, if any, made by the witness, unless the parties waive the statement or the witness is physically unable to make such statement or cannot be found.    (3) If no examination by the witness is requested, no statement by the witness as to the correctness of the transcription or recording is required. (Emphasis added.) The accused's depositions were taken on two occasions, on November 4 and 11, 1991. At the time that the first deposition was taken, the accused made no request to read and sign the deposition. The chairman of the trial panel was present during the second deposition in order to rule on objections made by the accused at the first deposition. The only request by the accused that the first deposition be submitted to him for his examination came during preliminary discussions at the second deposition, in which the accused stated, I would request a copy of [the November 4] transcript so I may review it as is my right under the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure   . The accused did not continue to press his request to examine the first deposition, apparently because Bar counsel forthwith agreed that he could do so. The accused made no further request in this regard, and he was given a copy of the deposition before trial. The accused's reliance on ORCP 39 F(1) is without substance. The accused also objected to admission of the deposition transcript, citing BR 4.5. The accused's position on this claim is: Bar Rule 4.5 provides that deposition practice shall conform to the Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure and further provides that: `(c) Discovery procedure. All discovery questions shall be resolved by the trial panel chairperson on motion. Discovery motions, including motions for limitation of discovery shall be in writing. All such motions shall be filed with the trial panel chairperson and a copy mailed to Bar counsel or the accused, and disciplinary counsel. `(e) Discovery sanctions. For failure to provide discovery as required under BR 4.5, the trial panel chairperson may make such rulings as are just, including, but not limited to, the following: `(1) a ruling that the matters regarding which the ruling was made or any other designated fact shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the proceeding in accordance with the claim of litigant obtaining ruling; or `(2) a ruling refusing to allow the disobedient litigant to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting the disobedient litigant from introducing designed matters in evidence.' Hence, the proper procedure for the Bar to address any contention that Williams failed to appropriately respond to deposition questions was by motion to the trial panel chairperson. The chairperson was empowered to impose sanctions, up to and including establishment of claims or refusal to allow defenses. The procedure adopted by the Bar in Rule 4.5 is the only sensible approach to depositions in disciplinary proceedings. Otherwise, a pro se defendant such as Mr. Williams would be chilled from adequately representing himself by the threat of a new disciplinary charge or enhanced sanctions. Any other rule would discriminate against the pro se defendant, since presumably the Bar would not bring charges against a lawyer who merely followed an attorney's instructions in refusing to answer questions. A pro se defendant facing questioning from Bar counsel in a formal deposition would be placed at an extreme disadvantage if he or she could not make objections or refuse to answer questions while acting in the dual roles of advocate and witness. (Emphasis in original; footnote omitted.) The trial panel excluded the depositions, noting that the Bar never asked the trial panel chairman to provide sanctions as permitted under rule 4.5(e) of the Oregon State Bar Rules of Procedure. The availability of sanctions under BR 4.5 does not preclude charging a lawyer with unethical conduct under DR 1-103(C). We turn then to the depositions to determine whether the accused violated DR 1-103(C). The Bar's amended complaint contained the following allegations: