Opinion ID: 836095
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Compliance With The Expunction Order

Text: The Bar charged that the accused violated DR 1-102(A)(2) by releasing the juvenile records that were subject to expunction under ORS 419A.260 and ORS 419A.262. ORS 419A.260 and ORS 419A.262 provide a process by which a person's juvenile records relating to contact with a law enforcement agency may be expunged. Expunction includes [t]he removal and destruction or sealing of a judgment or order related to a contact, ORS 419A.260(1)(b)(A), and [t]he removal and destruction of all records and all references, ORS 419A.260(1)(b)(B). A contact is defined as any instance in which a person's act or behavior, or alleged act or behavior, which could result in a juvenile court's assumption of jurisdiction, comes to the attention of a law enforcement agency, other state agency, or juvenile court. ORS 419A.260(1)(a); see also ORS 419B.100 (1995) (jurisdictional bases of juvenile court); ORS 419C.005 (1995) (same). A record includes a fingerprint or photograph file, report, exhibit or other material which contains information relating to a person's contact with any law enforcement agency or juvenile court or juvenile department[.] ORS 419A.260(1)(d). On the application of either the person who was the subject of those records, the juvenile department, or on a court's own motion, the juvenile court may order expunction. ORS 419A.262(2). For example, the court may order expunction when it finds that the juvenile is not within the jurisdiction of the court, ORS 419A.262(2)(d), or when expunction is in the best interests of the juvenile and the public, ORS 419A.262(7). Notice of the expunction application must be given to the district attorney in the county in which the proceedings are pending and to the district attorney in any county in which records may be kept, and both are permitted to file objections to the proposed expunction. ORS 419A.262(10)(a) and (11). After a court orders expunction, a copy of the order must be sent to each agency subject to that order. ORS 419A.262(16). Within 21 days of receipt, those agencies then are expected to indicate compliance by endorsing the order and returning it to the court or juvenile department. ORS 419A.262 (16). Six weeks after the copies of the orders are sent out, the court provides the person whose record has been expunged with a copy of the expunction order, a list of complying and noncomplying agencies, and a written notice of rights and effects of expunction. ORS 419A.262(17). The juvenile court then expunges its own records, except the original expunction order and a list of complying and non-complying agencies, which are preserved under seal. Id. Once a record is expunged, the contact that was the subject of the expunged record shall not be disclosed by any agency. ORS 419A.262(19). An order of expunction and a list of complying and noncomplying agencies may be released from confidentiality only on order of the court originating the order of expunction, based on a finding that review of a particular case furthers compliance with the expunction provisions of the statute. ORS 419A.262(22). More importantly, [a] person who intentionally releases all or part of an expunged record commits a Class C misdemeanor. [9] ORS 419A.262(25) (emphasis added). We conclude that the records that the accused possessed were subject to expunction. Whether the Clackamas County District Attorney's office might have had a meritorious ground for objecting to the proposed expunction is irrelevant. Because that District Attorney's office did not contest the expunction proceeding and the resulting order, the order was binding on that office and its personnel, including the accused. The accused argues that the statute applies to state agencies only, not to persons who possess records for their own purposes, and she maintains that she held the records as a private citizen for use in her Bar proceedings, not as an agent of the District Attorney's office. We reject that argument, because it ignores a vital fact, which is that the accused had access to the records only by virtue of her employment. Indeed, her possession of the records was related directly to the fact that she worked in the District Attorney's office, in that she took the records to defend herself from allegations of misconduct as a lawyer in that office. Moreover, the District Attorney did not transfer title of the records to her and make them her property, rather than the state's property. They remained the property of the District Attorney's office even after the accused took them home. A district attorney's office could not comply with the expunction statute merely by transferring possession of the records to another party, such as the accused. Rather, a district attorney must destroy records when ordered to do so. ORS 419A.260(1)(b)(B); ORS 419A.262. In this instance, the records that the trial court ordered destroyed became exhibits in another legal proceeding, a result that was not consistent with the purpose of the statute. The Bar maintains that the accused release[d] the expunged juvenile records in her prior Bar proceeding, thereby violating ORS 419A.262(24). The statute does not define the term release. To determine the intent of the legislature, we first look to the text and context of the statute. The text of the statute is the best evidence of legislative intent. PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606, 611, 859 P.2d 1143 (1993). If the intent is clear from the text and context, further analysis is unnecessary. Id. Based on the following discussion, we conclude that the unmistakable intent of ORS 419A.262 is to preserve the confidentiality of a juvenile's contact with law enforcement once a court has ordered expunction of that juvenile's records. The term release must be understood in that context. For example, release commonly is defined to include to set free from restraint. Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary, 1917 (unabridged ed. 1993). The restraint, in this instance, was the confidential nature of the expunged records. ORS 419A.262(22) provides that an order of expunction and a list of complying and noncomplying agencies may be released from confidentiality only on order of the original court. Release thus refers to a termination of the confidentiality required by statute. Releas[ing] records unlawfully means to make them available to others, thus disregarding their confidential status. In sum, the accused's release of the juvenile records was unlawful. Disregarding the court's order to expunge the records and disregarding the juvenile's interest in the confidentiality of the records, the accused used them as exhibits in her defense in the prior Bar matter. Although those records might have been useful to her defense, once she was aware of the expunction order, she was not privileged to use them in her Bar proceeding without seeking leave of the court that ordered the expunction. It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to [c]ommit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law. DR 1-102(A)(2). A charge under DR 1-102(A)(2) requires the court to determine initially what criminal act the accused committed. In re Allen, 326 Or. 107, 120-21, 949 P.2d 710 (1997). As noted, under ORS 419A.262(25), [a] person who intentionally releases all or part of an expunged record commits a Class C misdemeanor. Next, we must determine whether that criminal act reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice law. To do so, we consider: the lawyer's mental state; the extent to which the act demonstrates disrespect for the law or law enforcement; the presence or absence of a victim; the extent of actual or potential injury to a victim; and the presence or absence of a pattern of criminal conduct. Allen, 326 Or. at 122, 949 P.2d 710 (quoting In re White, 311 Or. 573, 589, 815 P.2d 1257 (1991)). Here, the accused acted intentionally, breaching the juvenile's privacy to benefit herself and injuring the juvenile in the process. The accused demonstrated disrespect for the law in disregarding the court's order of expunction and her use of the records reflected adversely on her fitness to practice law.
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to [e]ngage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. DR 1-102(A)(4). Prejudice to the administration of justice results from multiple acts that cause some harm or a single act that causes substantial harm. In re Rhodes, 331 Or. 231, 236, 13 P.3d 512 (2000) (citing In re Haws, 310 Or. 741, 748, 801 P.2d 818 (1990).) Harm to the administration of justice can occur when either the substantive rights of a party to the proceeding or the procedural functioning of a case or hearing is impaired. In re Meyer, 328 Or. 211, 214, 970 P.2d 652 (1999). Here, the accused undermined the expunction proceedings by releasing the juvenile's records in her Bar disciplinary matter, by failing to inform Judge Morgan that she possessed records subject to the expunction order, and by failing to destroy those records in compliance with the expunction order. Accordingly, we conclude that the accused engaged in acts that caused harm to the administration of justice and thereby violated DR 1-102(A)(4). 3. DR 7-106(A) A violation of DR 7-106(A) occurs when a lawyer disregards a tribunal's ruling made in the course of a proceeding, unless the lawyer's action amounts to `appropriate steps in good faith to test the validity' of the ruling. Rhodes, 331 Or. at 235, 13 P.3d 512. The accused does not argue that she was attempting to test the validity of the expunction order. For the same reasons that we have concluded that the accused violated DR 1-102(A)(2) and (A)(4), we conclude that she violated DR 7-106(A).