Opinion ID: 1185890
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Respond to the Bar

Text: The fourth, eighth, ninth, and eleventh causes of complaint charged the accused with failing to respond to inquiries from the Bar enclosing complaints the Bar had received in the Brightman, Blackman, and Owre episodes and in one unrelated matter. Before the trial board and the Disciplinary Review Board the accused stipulated to these accusations, subject to the same extenuating reasons mentioned in the Owre case. The Disciplinary Review Board took this failure to respond into account in reaching a recommendation that the accused be disciplined by a 30-day suspension from practice. In In re Kneeland, supra , this court noted that it has previously had occasion to express its disapproval of inexcusable delay by an attorney in responding to requests by clients and by the Oregon State Bar, including requests by the Bar for information relating to clients' complaints. 281 Or. at 322, 574 P.2d 324. We recently repeated that disapproval, stating that [r]eadiness to accept the obligation to account for one's performance is an important element of professionalism. In re Geurts, supra, 290 Or. at 248, 620 P.2d 1373. However, we continued by noting that failure to respond to inquiries by the Bar is not itself clearly condemned by a disciplinary rule, independent of what bearing it may have on the matter under inquiry. 290 Or. at 248, 620 P.2d 1373. Accordingly, as in Geurts, we impose no additional sanction for these causes of complaint.