Opinion ID: 1145445
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: falsifying documents

Text: The dissolution client, mentioned in the previous section of this opinion, terminated the accused's professional representation and complained to the Bar. The Bar requested an explanation from the accused, including what happened to costs advanced by the client. As stated, those costs initially were paid as filing fees in Multnomah County but, at the request of the accused's firm, were refunded to that firm by a check made payable to the client. When the accused could not locate the client's file, [8] he responded to the Bar by a letter of explanation that enclosed several documents that the accused caused to be created (on the ground that they should have been in the file had he been able to locate it). The accused presented the documents as genuine, not as ones that he had created later to answer the Bar's inquiry. One of the created documents was a pre-printed form fee agreement covering the dissolution case, which indicated that the amount of fees would change if the dissolution became contested. Two other documents created for the purpose of responding to the Bar's inquiry were purported letters from a salaried lawyer, no longer in the accused's employ, to the client. The manufactured letters explained the need for additional fees and the fact that a cost refund had been received in trust. [9] The accused represented to the Bar, by giving them to the Bar as a part of what he represented was the file from his office, that the letters were genuine, when he knew that they were not. The Bar charged the accused with violating ORS 9.527(1) and (4), quoted in text above; DR 1-102(A)(3) and (4), quoted in note 3 above; and DR 1-103(C) (A lawyer who is the subject of a disciplinary investigation shall respond fully and truthfully to inquiries from the Bar). The accused contends that there was no misrepresentation, because he had reason to believe that the salaried lawyer, who previously handled the dissolution client's case, had notified the client about the fee refund and the increase in fees. The accused contends that this notice, if given, probably would have been by letter, because the client was deaf and could not communicate orally with her lawyer. Creating and transmitting those documents was, at least, a misrepresentation. The accused also contends that, even if his acts concerning the manufactured documents are considered misrepresentations, they should not be classified as dishonest, because he did not intend to mislead the Bar. The accused bases this contention on his claimed belief that the salaried lawyer indeed had sent letters like those that the accused generated and that copies of those letters would have been in the file, had the genuine file been located. The accused further contends that the mental state accompanying delivery of the manufactured documents was not an intention to misrepresent, but simply knowledge that the Bar might be misled into believing that the documents were authentic. There is a distinction, as the accused asserts, between misrepresentation occurring negligently and an affirmative act of dishonest or intentional misrepresentation. The accused relies on In re Hiller, 298 Or. 526, 533, 694 P.2d 540 (1985), to support his contention that the misrepresentation in this case, if any, should not be classified as dishonest. In Hiller, this court said: We do not interpret `fraud, deceit or misrepresentation' to be three words for the same thing. A misrepresentation becomes fraud or deceit when it is intended to be acted upon without being discovered. We do not find clear and convincing evidence that Janssen and Hiller had such an intention. They apparently expected to defend their `sale,' not to disguise it. The circuit judge hearing the summary judgment proceeding stated that he did not believe they intended to mislead the court. But the fact that they did not intend to deceive or commit a fraud on the court does not acquit them of misrepresentation. As mentioned above, misrepresentation can include nondisclosure, and DR 1-102(A)(4) is not limited to or even primarily concerned with courts. Ibid. In In re Hedrick, 312 Or. 442, 446, 450, 822 P.2d 1187 (1991), this court held that leading a probate court to believe that a will offered for probate was the last will of the decedent, when the accused knew that it was not, was a disciplinary violation. This court explained: We find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the accused made a misrepresentation in the petition that violated DR 1-102(A)(3). See In re Hiller, 298 Or 526, 532-33, 694 P2d 540 (1985) (a misrepresentation occurs when a lawyer has an undisclosed material fact in mind and knowingly fails to disclose it).      The facts as we have found them in the present case are particularly disturbing. The accused offered a will for probate that he knew should not be offered in such manner and engaged in a course of conduct that he hoped would keep the appropriate will from ever being offered. Ibid. Obviously, the documents that the accused created helped to place the accused's conduct in retaining the refund in the best possible light. It is equally obvious that the documents themselves were falsehoods. The further representation that they were genuine was likewise false. We find that the accused's delivery of the fabricated documents to the Bar, with the intention that the Bar consider the documents genuine, is an intentional and false representation that is dishonest in nature. The accused, therefore, violated DR 1-102(A)(3). We also find, as the Bar argues, that this conduct prejudiced the administration of justice. As the court said in In re Boothe, 303 Or. 643, 654, 740 P.2d 785 (1987), where the issue was whether the administration of justice includes Bar disciplinary proceedings: Finally (and, perhaps, most to the point), bar disciplinary proceedings determine whether an accused is fit to practice law in the courts of this statea question as close to the heart of the `administration of justice' as any could be. We conclude that bar proceedings further `the administration of justice' within the meaning of former DR 1-102(A)(5), and the accused is guilty of violating that rule. (Footnote omitted.) See also In re Haws, 310 Or. 741, 748, 801 P.2d 818 (1990) (the prejudice aspect of DR 1-102(A)(4) requires either a single act substantially harming the administration of justice or repeated conduct causing some harm to the administration of justice). Based on the foregoing discussion of the applicable law, we hold that the accused also violated DR 1-102(A)(4). The accused is, therefore, guilty of all violations charged in connection with fabricating the file that he provided to the Bar.