Opinion ID: 1215810
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: FIRST CAUSE OF COMPLAINT (Warren Guidry)

Text: We find that the accused was retained by Warren Guidry on June 2, 1982, to represent Guidry on an employment discrimination and civil rights claim against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The retainer agreement and receipt for payment of $500 bore Guidry's permanent address in Portland. The retainer agreement bore the notation signed by Guidry: My attorney is authorized to sign my name and in all other respects to act for me. By letter dated June 30, 1982, the accused sent a formal complaint of discrimination to the Corps of Engineers, which had been signed for Guidry by the accused. The cover letter advised that Warren Guidry intends to file a formal complaint in court within the next 15 days if his complaints of discrimination are not resolved. The accused's letter closed with Please reply as promptly as your review of these matters permits so that I may advise my client accordingly. The Department of the Army sent a final decision denying the claim by letter dated July 9, 1982, received by the accused July 12, 1982. In this letter the Army advised the accused that a civil action must be filed in a U.S. District Court within 30 days of receipt of the form. On August 13, 1982, the accused filed a civil rights complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of Guidry against the Army and its agencies and officers. On December 9, 1982, the government filed its answer to the complaint, which set forth in count two, paragraph 4: Plaintiff has failed to file timely judicial complaint. The accused failed to note this. The defense of untimely filing did not attract his attention until set forth in the government's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment filed January 5, 1983. The accused had authority and direction from Guidry after June 2, 1982, to file the complaint in federal court. In response to the government's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, however, the accused filed an affidavit with the court falsely stating that the accused had no authority from Guidry to receive the final denial letter concerning Guidry's discrimination complaint. The court, based upon the transmittal letter and the accused's signature for Guidry on the discrimination complaint form, held that notice to the accused was notice to Guidry and granted summary judgment to the government. The authorization on the bottom of the fee agreement gave the accused the authority to receive the Army's denial letter and to file the discrimination action. The position of the accused that he could not accept the denial letter, but still had authority to file the action, is ludicrous. The accused also failed to keep Guidry informed concerning the progress of the case, which caused Guidry to file a complaint with the Bar against the accused. The accused testified that he had advised Guidry of the dismissal by telephone in May 1983. We find that this testimony was false. On July 5, 1983, Guidry wrote the accused, giving his Navy fleet post office return address and asking for a status report on the case. He wrote: I have tried to contact you on several occasions but to no avail. I would like to know what progress you have made on the civil right suit filed against the army engineer and also the Chase Club. I would appreciate receiving all correspondence to date on these two matters by registered mail at your earliest convenience. On July 21, 1983, Guidry again wrote to the accused asking for a status report and noting that he had received the return receipt indicating that the accused had received the July 5, 1983, letter. [3] There would have been no reason for Guidry to write these letters if the accused had told him of the dismissal in May. We find the alleged May telephone conversation never took place. The accused lied that it had. On September 26, 1983, Guidry wrote to the Bar complaining that the accused had not responded to his July 5 and 21, 1983, letters. In response to the Bar's inquiry, the accused wrote Guidry on November 8, 1983, making false reference to having previously given Guidry a status report. He finally advised Guidry that the case had been and remained dismissed. Guidry ultimately settled his claim for malpractice against the accused with the professional liability fund for $30,000. As to the first cause of complaint, the record is clear that the accused filed a letter of complaint with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after receiving a retainer agreement and payment of $500. He expressed an intent to file a complaint in court but failed timely to do so. As a result of his negligence, the case was dismissed, causing a loss to his client, which was settled for $30,000 by the professional liability fund. The accused not only was negligent in failing to perform his professional responsibilities, he intentionally filed a false affidavit with the court, claiming he had no authority from his client to file the action. He then falsely swore to the Bar about advising his client of the status of the case. The Trial Panel concluded that the accused violated former DR 1-102(A)(4) (current DR 1-102(A)(3)), [4] which provided: A lawyer shall not:       (4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. and also that the accused was guilty of violating former DR 6-101(A)(3) (current DR 6-101(B)), which provided: A lawyer shall not:       (3) Neglect a legal matter entrusted to him. We reach the same conclusions. The Trial Panel concluded that the accused was not guilty of violating ORS 9.527(4) [5] and DR 7-102(A)(5). DR 7-102(A)(5) provides: In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:       (5) Knowingly make a false statement of law or fact. We disagree. The record is clear that the accused knowingly made false statements to the court, in fact a sworn false statement. He also lied to his client and to the Bar. Such egregious conduct warrants a severe sanction.