Opinion ID: 1219182
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Applicant's conduct from 1981-86

Text: Applicant's conduct from 1981 to 1986 shows anything but good moral character. Applicant himself acknowledges that fact. During that period, applicant: (1) neglected his clients resulting in his suspension from practice in California; (2) engaged in serious criminal conduct resulting in his conviction; (3) violated his probation by committing an uncharged felony, i.e., Felon in Possession of a Firearm, ORS 166.270, [15] resulting in his serving six-months in jail; and (4) threatened a man's life and engaged in a fight over a debt that applicant admits he knew at the time the debtor could not pay. As a result of some of those actions, he was suspended from the practice of law in California in 1986 and again in 1989. [16] That conduct would be most disturbing in someone who was young and inexperienced, but it was appalling in someone of applicant's age. In 1982, applicant was 38 years old and had been a practicing lawyer for seven years. From the spring of 1982 to the summer of 1986, while he was engaging in illegal drug purchases in California and a marijuana growing operation in Oregon, applicant was a member of the California Bar. Those facts distinguish this proceeding from In re Rowell, supra , where the applicant was considerably younger at the time of his unlawful conduct and was not a member of the legal profession. Applicant describes his conduct as uncharacteristic and attributes his actions to his reaction to the death of his wife in 1982. While anyone can understand the trauma such an event might cause, applicant's implicit argument that it somehow justifies or excuses a continuing pattern of serious criminal conduct is unpersuasive. Moreover, the record shows at least three instances of applicant's professional misconduct, i.e., client abandonment, that occurred before his wife's death and, as noted, the hearing panel specifically found that Applicant's testimony [on this issue] is not consistent with the facts. His attempt to attribute all his misconduct to that tragedy is misleading and unpersuasive.