Opinion ID: 835242
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Violation of RPC 8.1(a)(2)

Text: The Bar alleges that the accused violated RPC 8.1(a)(2) when he failed to respond to the Bar's request for information regarding the debt that he owed to Stephanie. RPC 8.1(a)(2) provides, in part, that a lawyer, in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from a[]    disciplinary authority[.] The accused asserts that the Bar did not make a lawful demand for the information because Stephanie was his friend, and not his client, when the debt originated in 1997, and, therefore, he did not violate the rule. The lawfulness of the Bar's request for information does not depend on the Bar being correct that there was a violation (which it was in this case). The Bar has authority to investigate when it has been presented with factual allegations that raise an arguable complaint of misconduct. See ORS 9.542 (Board of Governors of the Bar authorized, subject to Supreme Court approval, to adopt rules governing investigations of conduct of attorneys); BR 2.5(b)(1) (if written complaint against attorney raises an arguable complaint of misconduct, disciplinary counsel may require attorney to respond). We conclude that the accused violated RPC 8.1(a)(2) by refusing the Bar's demand for information about his debt to Stephanie.