Opinion ID: 835146
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: procedural issues and affirmative defenses

Text: As we earlier described, the accused's substantive arguments in his brief do not challenge the trial panel's factual findings or conclusions as to the rules that the trial panel found the accused to have violated. Instead, the accused raises only procedural issues that he has styled as affirmative defensesdefenses that, in his view, require dismissal of the disciplinary proceeding in its entirety. We do not discuss all the issues that the accused raises and argues. Some repeat arguments that we have previously rejected in our review of the accused's prior disciplinary proceedings. [17] Others raise matters that simply are not relevant defenses to the disciplinary violations at issue in this proceeding. [18] Still others raise issues that were not raised before the trial panel and that are unpreserved and undeveloped for our review. [19] As to those arguments that do warrant discussion, the accused presents them all pursuant to a single question presented: Is the Oregon State Bar disciplinary system unconstitutional because it denies Oregon State Bar members free speech, due process and equal protection of the laws? Although some of the accused's arguments appear to raise claims of systemic unconstitutionality, others are claims of procedural irregularities that are specific to this case. We begin with those claims. We then turn to the accused's apparent claims of systemic unconstitutionality.
When the trial panel filed its opinion with the Disciplinary Board, the panel chair did so with a cover letter and an initial footnote in the opinion itself acknowledging that the opinion had been signed by only two of the three members of the trial panel. The letter explained that the member who did not sign the opinion (Dr. Kosokoff, the public member of the panel) had fully participated in the trial of the case, the deliberations and ultimate decision of the trial panel, and also provided comment and input on the initial draft of the opinion. Because of Kosokoff's travel plans, which required him to be out of the country, the date for filing the opinion had been extended to permit him to review and comment on the opinion in its final form after his return. While traveling, however, Kosokoff suffered a stroke and was hospitalized out of state. He could not communicate verbally and was unavailable to review the final written opinion and to sign it. The chair ended the letter stating, Because Dr. Kosokoff actively participated in the trial and decision process, and to avoid further delay in the case, I have elected to proceed with filing the opinion without Dr. Kosokoff's signature. BR 2.4(a) requires a trial panel in a disciplinary proceeding to consist of 2 attorneys and 1 public member. BR 2.4(i)(2)(a) provides, in part, that the trial panel shall render a written opinion signed by the concurring members of the trial panel. That rule also provides that a dissenting member shall note his or her dissent, and may file a dissenting opinion and attach it to the majority opinion of the trial panel. Relying on that requirement, the accused argues that the lack of Kosokoff's signature on the opinion requires a mistrial. The accused urges that [n]o one knows if [Kosokoff] was ill during the proceedings and now suggests, based on the accused's observations, that Kosokoff may not have been well at that time. The accused maintains that the trial panel's understanding of how Kosokoff voted was a product of inadmissible hearsay. [20] In the accused's view, the procedural irregularity of having only two signatures on the opinion per se requires a mistrial. Although the lack of Kosokoff's signature on the opinion may be a procedural irregularity, it is not one that requires a mistrial. Nothing in the Bar's rules expressly requires that all three panel members actually sign the panel opinion. Rather, only those concurring must do so. Here, the chair and one other member of the trial panel concurring in the decision both signed the opinion. That is enough to make the opinion the official opinion of the panel. If one panel member were to insist on abstaining from casting a vote, nothing in the rule prevents two concurring members from still rendering an opinion and giving it effect by signing it. At best for the accused, that was the consequence of Kosokoff's inability to sign the panel opinion herehe did not join in the opinion, and neither did he dissent. He effectively is in the position of an abstaining panel member. We might reach a different conclusion if the irregularity were shown to have prejudiced the accused. But here, there is no prejudice. The accused's belated assertion that Kosokoff may not have been well at the time of the hearing is unsupported. Our de novo review of the record confirms his active participation in the hearing ( e.g., through the questions he asked both of witnesses and the accused). And, significantly, the accused raised no claim during the proceedings that Kosokoff seemed ill or was otherwise not participating. Neither did the accused do anything to raise such an assertion when the trial panel chair, upon filing the opinion, noted Kosokoff's participation in the hearing and the deliberations on the draft opinion, while explaining the circumstances that prevented Kosokoff from participating in review of the final opinion and signing it. Under the circumstances, there is no reason to believe that Kosokoff's post-hearing illness limited the development of the record or the deliberations of the trial panel, or that it in any other way deprived the accused of a fundamentally fair proceeding. See In re Hendrick, 346 Or. 98, 107-08, 208 P.3d 488 (2009) ( de novo review cannot cure a procedural error that might affect the development of the record). The accused is not entitled to a new disciplinary hearing on this ground.
The accused asserts that the complaints arising out of the several matters involved in this case were improperly consolidated into one disciplinary proceeding because the several matters have no nexus in either law or fact. BR 4.1(d) specifically vests the State Professional Responsibility Board (SPRB) with the authority to consolidate two or more causes of complaint against the same lawyer. Implicit in the rule is the recognition that the fact that the charges are against the same lawyer provides a sufficient nexus for joinder of the separate causes of complaint. The rule is analogous to the rule that governs permissive joinder in civil proceedings in circuit court. See ORCP 24 A (plaintiff may join in single complaint as many claims as plaintiff has against an opposing party). The accused's reliance on the standards for consolidating charges in criminal cases does not aid himdisciplinary proceedings are governed by the Bar's rules, not the statutes that apply to criminal prosecutions. See generally In re Wyllie, 326 Or. 622, 626, 956 P.2d 951 (1998) (bar disciplinary proceedings are not criminal proceedings). To whatever extent the accused may maintain that general federal principles of due process compel some different test for joinder of complaints in lawyer disciplinary matters, the accused has made no developed or legally supported argument in that regard. The accused's challenge to the joinder of the several complaints against him provides no ground for relief. [21]
The accused asserts that the trial panel improperly denied him discovery by denying his request to depose judges who had ruled in the underlying circuit court proceedings in the Brady-Aiello matter and who, according to the accused, were biased against him. In response to the accused's attempt to depose those judges, the Department of Justice moved for a protective order. The trial panel chair granted the motion after concluding that the accused wanted to depose the judges on matters collateral to the disciplinary charges that he was facing. At various times during the hearing, the subject came up again, with the accused effectively renewing his request to depose those judges. The trial panel chair considered those requests, but each time concluded, as she had earlier, before the hearing, that the matters into which the accused wanted to inquire would not be sufficiently relevant to the issues in this disciplinary proceeding. Under BR 4.5(b)(1), an accused lawyer in a disciplinary proceeding is entitled to seek discovery through requests for admission, production of documents, and the use of depositions. The accused's right to discovery, however, is not absolute. The purpose of discovery in disciplinary proceedings is to promote identification of issues and a prompt and fair hearing on the charges. BR 4.5(a). The trial panel chair, who is charged with ruling on discovery motions, is vested with discretion in that regard and may impose such terms or limitations on the exercise of discovery as may appear necessary to prevent undue delay or expense in bringing the matter to hearing and to promote the interests of justice. BR 4.5(d). The accused makes only a categorical argument that he was entitled to depose the trial judges in question. He does not examine the particular arguments that he made to the trial panel in support of his efforts to depose those trial judges; he does not explain, in any concrete or focused way, how the depositions of those judges would have been relevant to the charges against him in this proceeding; and he makes no effort to demonstrate that the denial of his requests was an abuse of discretion. We find no error by the trial panel chair in this regard.
In In re Paulson, 341 Or. 542, 545, 145 P.3d 171 (2006), cert. den. 549 U.S. 1304, 127 S.Ct. 1876, 167 L.Ed.2d 363 (2007) ( Paulson III ), the accused defended against the disciplinary complaint brought against him, arguing, in part, that the disciplinary counsel for the Bar had filed the complaint for vindictive and retaliatory motives. This court rejected his arguments, because the accused had not substantiated his claim that the Bar had initiated the disciplinary proceeding for an impermissible reason. Id. In this proceeding, the accused attempted to make the record that he failed to make in Paulson III. In particular, the accused called the Bar's Disciplinary Counsel, Jeff Sapiro, and its then-Executive Director, Karen Garst, as witnesses. The accused also put in a range of documentary exhibits, such as statistical studies of the Bar membership examining the extent to which the general membership perceives the disciplinary process as fair or biased (and if biased, on what basis), and letters from other persons who had been subject to the disciplinary process in the past and who thought that their particular proceedings had not been fair. In attempting to show that the disciplinary proceeding against him was impermissibly motivated, the accused also relied on the timing of earlier disciplinary proceedings against him, which he asserted coincided with activities in which he had engaged that had caused Sapiro and Garst to be vindictive towards him. The trial panelwhich the accused does not challenge as biased in any waytook his claims seriously and addressed them expressly. The trial panel accurately captured the essence of the theme that pervades the accused's arguments in this case: These defenses are alleged in a manner suggesting a common themethe Bar has treated the Accused differently than other members of the Bar accused of wrongdoing and has done so because the Accused objected to the manner in which the Bar conducted its business; had objected to the disciplinary process as part of a disciplinary system task force some years ago; had been openly critical of Jeff Sapiro and his office; had raised issues of improper ex parte conduct about his case(s) between the Board of Governors and the Supreme Court; and had complained about delay and retaliation against him. In short, that the Accused's assertion of his rights over the past several years has resulted in such animosity towards him that the claims of misconduct by the disciplinary counsel's office have been and are spurious and raised solely to retaliate and silence the Accused. The trial panel found no persuasive evidence that either Sapiro or Garst had a vindictive or retaliatory motive in taking any action connected with the disciplinary proceedings against the accused. To the contrary, the trial panel found expressly: [T]he Accused examined both Karen Garst and Jeffrey Sapiro. The Trial Panel listened to that testimony carefully. The Accused argues the timing of all that has happened to him is sufficient evidence of animosity. While there are inferences that can be drawn in favor of the allegations of the Accused, they do not arise to a level that satisfies the Accused's burden of proof. While Sapiro admitted he was not happy about the federal court civil suit the Accused filed against him and other Bar leaders, there is no convincing evidence the allegations raised in that case, the defenses filed in Paulson II, or those in the case at bar have affected his judgment. In short, the panel finds that the Accused has taken the process very personally while Garst and Sapiro have taken it professionally. Later, in the discussion and conclusion section of the trial panel's opinion, the trial panel further addressed the accused's claim that the disciplinary proceedings against him were impermissibly motivated; We have discussed [the accused's prosecutorial misconduct defenses] above, and are unable to find prosecutorial misconduct in this case. We carefully reviewed the documents in this case, including those offered by the Accused; observed the demeanor and actions of disciplinary counsel and trial counsel for the Bar; and observed the testimony of both Karen Garst and Jeff Sapiro. While the Accused may believe there was a vendetta against him by the Bar, it has not been proven by any reasonable standard. It is true that the Accused has leveled a long series of charges against the Bar over a period of years and that those assertions have been emotional for all concerned. Throughout this time, however, the panel must conclude officials of the Bar seem to have acted properly. That said, the panel would feel differently if the prior disciplinary cases against the Accused (as well as the charges pending here) had been determined to be without merit. Even at that, however, we are not certain that facts that might amount to a tort claim for malicious prosecution are a viable defense in an unrelated disciplinary case. The trial panel's rejection of the accused's claims of vindictive and retaliatory prosecution turned significantly on the panel's credibility assessments of both the accused and the Bar staff. We appropriately defer to those assessments. The accused's theory of vindictive and conspiratorial motivation for the proceedings against him collapses with the trial panel's finding, which we make as well, that neither Sapiro nor Garst took any action that led to the disciplinary proceedings out personal animus against the accused. [22] In addition, as the trial panel observed, and as this opinion earlier concludes based on our de novo review, the complaints against the accused all have proved to be well-founded. Bar staff would have been remiss in meeting their responsibilities had they not investigated those complaints. Likewise, they would have been remiss had they not pursued the additional disciplinary violations that they discovered in the course of their investigations ( viz., the violations related to the accused's unauthorized practice of law when his suspension began). Having reviewed all the evidence that bears on the accused's claim that the disciplinary proceedings against him had been brought for impermissible motives, we conclude that the evidence disproves the accused's defense. [23] Consequently, just as the trial panel did not need to decide when a claim of vindictive or retaliatory prosecution in a disciplinary proceeding will provide a valid defense to proven disciplinary violations, so, too, do we not need to decide that question.
The accused argues, as he has in past disciplinary proceedings, that the trial panel's delay in issuing its opinion deprived him of due process. In In re Paulson, 335 Or. 436, 439, 71 P.3d 60 (2003) ( Paulson I ), this court held that a disciplinary trial panel's failure to comply with the timelines identified in the Bar rules for issuing opinions is not an automatic ground for dismissal of the complaint against a lawyer charged with misconduct. Rather, the accused must show that the delay prejudiced his ability to receive a fair hearing. As in Paulson I, the accused has not madeor attempted to make, for that matterthe required showing. He is not entitled to relief on that ground.
The accused, in scattershot fashion, makes a variety of arguments in support of his position that the Oregon State Bar disciplinary system deprives its membership in general of equal protection, due process, and free speech. Many of those argumentsand particularly the accused's argument that the system is riggedreiterate points that the accused makes in support of his claim that the disciplinary proceedings against him were motivated by vindictiveness or retaliation. We do not address those arguments separately; they are answered by our disposition of his claim of vindictiveness and retaliation. We address only two remaining claims, neither of which merit extended discussion. First, the accused asserts that the free speech rights of lawyers charged with disciplinary rule violations are violated by Oregon State Bar Bylaw 18.103, which prevents a lawyer who is subject to a formal disciplinary proceeding from communicating with the Board of Governors and Bar employees, agents, or representatives regarding the matter. Once a formal disciplinary proceeding is underway, the Bar effectively is represented in the matter by disciplinary counsel. The lawyer who is the subject of the proceeding is therefore limited to communicating on the merits of the matter with Disciplinary Counsel's office and with appointed counsel for the Bar[.] The Bylaw thus effectively implements RPC 4.2, which restricts lawyers from communicating on the subject of the representation with a person that the lawyer knows to be represented by a lawyer. The accused's argument presents a facial challenge to the validity of Bylaw 18.103 that has no bearing on any issue in this case. [24] The accused was not charged with violating Bylaw 18.103 or RPC 4.2. If he had been alleged to have violated that rule, his argument might present a legitimate defense. See generally State v. Spencer, 289 Or. 225, 228, 611 P.2d 1147 (1980) (law that facially violates the state constitutional free speech protection is void and unenforceable, regardless of whether particular conduct involved was itself protected). But, as it stands, the accused's argument that Bylaw 18.102 violates constitutional free speech guarantees is purely collateral to the issues in this case. Whatever the merits of the accused's argument, it provides no ground on which the accused is entitled to avoid the consequences of the particular disciplinary violations involved in this proceeding. [25] The second, and final, argument that we address is the accused's claim that the disciplinary process violates due process and equal protection because lawyers accused of rule violations are not given adequate access to voluntary counsel. The accused's argument in that regard is a particularly narrow one. He does not assert a constitutional right to appointed counsel. Nor could he; he has not claimed that he is indigent, that he is similarly situated to others who receive appointed counsel, or that our precedent establishing that there is no general entitlement to appointed counsel in disciplinary proceedings is wrongly decided. See In re Harris, 334 Or. 353, 363-64, 49 P.3d 778 (2002) (federal due process principles do not require appointment of counsel for an indigent lawyer charged with violating disciplinary rules). The accused relies instead on the fact that members of the Bar volunteer to serve as Bar counsel in disciplinary matters free of charge. Therefore, according to the accused, the Bar must provide the accused with access to volunteer counsel as well. Whatever its constitutional merits, the accused's argument presents a nonissue. The accused's own questioning of Bar staff in this case established that, in fact, the Bar annually solicits its membership and collects the names of lawyers who will voluntarily represent accused lawyers in disciplinary cases. When a formal complaint alleging a violation is filed against a lawyer, that lawyer is provided with a list of those volunteers. The accused lawyer is then free to contact a lawyer on that list in an effort to arrange for voluntary representation. In this case, the accused has not claimed that a list of volunteer lawyers was not provided to him. Neither has he claimed that he tried unsuccessfully to avail himself of representation through that process. His argument does not even acknowledge the existence of that voluntary program. Given the record before us, and the limitations of the argument that the accused has presented, we conclude that his challenge on this ground is without merit.