Opinion ID: 835146
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Joinder of Complaints

Text: 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]