Opinion ID: 835847
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Bridge Matter

Text: Bridge retained the accused to represent her in a marital dissolution proceeding in which the main issue was the validity of a prenuptial agreement. In July 1998, the trial court signed a judgment of dissolution of marriage upholding the validity of the agreement, but nonetheless awarded some spousal support to Bridge. The accused filed a notice of appeal in August 1998. The opposing party cross-appealed. In June 1999, counsel for the opposing party filed an answering brief. That brief included a motion to dismiss Bridge's appeal on the ground that the accused had failed to serve properly Bridge's former husband with the notice of appeal. [2] The accused thought that the motion had little chance of success. The accused sent the opposing party's brief to Bridge with a transmittal letter that did not call express attention to the risk of dismissal as a result of the motion. The accused discussed the status of the case with Bridge on May 6, 1999, August 11, 1999, and January 5, 2000. There is no indication in the record whether the accused discussed the motion with Bridge or whether she questioned the accused about the motion. On April 12, 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed Bridge's appeal, because the accused had failed to serve the notice of appeal properly. Bridge, 166 Or.App. at 462, 998 P.2d 780. Due to the cross-appeal, however, the Court of Appeals addressed the validity of the prenuptial agreement, rejected the accused's arguments, and vacated the spousal support award to the accused's client. Id. at 463-65, 998 P.2d 780. Bridge first received notice of the Court of Appeals decision from a friend on April 27, 2000. In her testimony before the trial panel, Bridge asserted that she must have attempted to contact the accused after hearing about the decision. There is no contemporaneous record of such an attempt, however, and Bridge testified that she was not sure if she had contacted or had attempted to contact the accused. For his part, the accused asserted at the trial panel hearing that he had sent a copy of the Court of Appeals decision to Bridge or that he had contacted her in April 2000 regarding that decision, though there is no record of such an attempt. At his own expense, the accused hired another lawyer to file a petition for review in this court and, on May 17, 2000, requested an extension of time in which to file that petition. He sent Bridge a copy of that motion and later sent Bridge a copy of the petition for review. The accused spoke with Bridge about the Court of Appeals decision on May 22, 2000. At that time, the accused discussed his plans to appeal the appeal. It is unclear whether Bridge spoke to the accused after May 22, 2000. Although Bridge apparently kept a daily logbook of her activities, including telephone calls, she also stated at the trial panel hearing that she had tried to record instances when the accused contacted her. The accused did not inform Bridge that opposing counsel filed a petition for costs and attorney fees, that this court denied Bridge's petition for review, and that the Court of Appeals entered an appellate judgment against her in the amount of $3,320.50. Bridge first learned about those events when a collection agency contacted her in November 2000. Bridge sent a letter to the accused in December 2000 that generally complained about the quality of the accused's representation. The accused did not respond to that letter.