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

Heading: acts of violence

Text: A. Menacing Another. A little more than a day after an incident in which the accused kicked a former employee, the accused encountered her brother on the highway. Both men stopped their vehicles. In the course of the conversation with the former employee's brother, the accused pulled a loaded shotgun from his vehicle and threatened the brother with it. The accused pleaded no contest to a criminal charge of menacing and was found guilty by a trial court under ORS 163.190. [1] The Bar charges the accused with violating both DR 1-102(A)(2), quoted in note 3 below, and ORS 9.527(2) thereby. ORS 9.527 in part provides: The Supreme Court may disbar, suspend or reprimand a member of the bar whenever,    it appears to the court that: (1) The member has committed an act or carried on a course of conduct of such nature that, if the member were applying for admission to the bar, the application should be denied; (2) The member has been convicted in any jurisdiction of an offense which is a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a felony under the laws of this state,         [or] (4) The member is guilty of willful deceit or misconduct in the legal profession   [.] [2] In Oregon, the result of a plea of no contest is a conviction of crime. ORS 135.345. Therefore, the requirement of ORS 9.527(2) that an accused be convicted in any jurisdiction of an offense is satisfied. The question remains whether the conviction, being of a misdemeanor only, is of a crime involving moral turpitude. The accused admits that it is. That admission is correct. The accused violated ORS 9.527(2). Concerning the act of pointing a loaded gun at his former employee's brother, the accused contends that in this act of violence he lacked the intent to harm. That claim is not persuasive. The accused has been found guilty of intentionally placing another person in fear of serious harm. B. Kicking Another. The accused engaged in an intimate affair with a former employee. She ended the affair. After drinking alcohol, the accused went to the former employee's house and engaged her in a discussion. She was seated on the floor with her legs crossed, facing the accused. He told her that she was seeing another man. When the accused, who was standing, heard her response, he kicked her in the face. She then swung her body around, placing her back to the accused, but remained huddled on the floor while taking no other action to defend herself. He kicked her several more times. The accused's attack on his former employee was resolved by civil compromise of criminal assault charge, not a conviction. The Bar charges the accused with a violation of DR 1-102(A)(2). [3] The accused contends that the assault does not reflect on his fitness to practice law because his violent acts in this incident were related to his personal affairs rather than to his professional activities. There is no need to settle the legal question whether the kicking episode violates DR 1-102(A) because, even without a holding that the kicking episode is a violation, the court would disbar the accused. Accordingly, we move on to charges of other violations.