Opinion ID: 2604765
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bach-Hoa Schesso

Text: Mr. Kraus was first asked about representing Mrs. Schesso in a dissolution of marriage by a friend of Mrs. Schesso's. According to Mr. Kraus' testimony he told the friend he would be unable to help her but he would arrange an appointment with Mr. Boland and that he, Mr. Kraus, would be present at the meeting to introduce them. When Mrs. Schesso arrived at the office Mr. Boland was not present so she and the friend met with Mr. Kraus. Although Mrs. Schesso testified that at no time was she told Mr. Boland would be her attorney, Mr. Kraus testified that he made it clear he could not represent Mrs. Schesso but Mr. Boland would. Some time later Mrs. Schesso requested that papers be filed. There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether Mrs. Schesso's contact then was with Mr. Boland or Mr. Kraus, however, it was Mr. Boland who filed the papers. When Mrs. Schesso became dissatisfied with Mr. Boland's handling of her case she called Mr. Kraus and there followed a meeting with both Mr. Boland and Mr. Kraus present. Mrs. Schesso testified that Mr. Kraus said at this meeting that he would represent her in the future but this was denied by both Mr. Kraus and Mr. Boland. Mrs. Schesso became aware of Mr. Kraus's suspension from the practice of law when a friend contacted the Oregon State Bar. Mr. Kraus does not contend he ever told Mrs. Schesso of his suspension. The Trial Board also heard testimony regarding other activities giving the appearance of the practice of law. A sign bearing Mr. Kraus's name and identifying him as an attorney continued to remain outside his former office for some months after the suspension and was removed only when it was called to the attention of Mr. Boland by a member of the Bar's Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. Mr. Kraus also continued to be listed in the yellow pages of the telephone directory. There was some evidence that Mr. Kraus retained personal effects in the office and that he made some use of the office. Mr. Kraus argues that at most his activities indicate an exercise of poor judgment and that he should not be sanctioned for attempting to assist in resolving the problems of two existing cases or for the assistance he gave in securing an attorney to handle a dissolution of marriage. An exercise of poor judgment no doubt occurred but this does not mitigate the ample evidence that Mr. Kraus continued to practice law after he was suspended. [4] The continued practice of law after an order of this court suspending an attorney from the practice of law engenders substantial doubts about the individual's    respect for    the laws of the state and therefore demonstrates a lack of good moral character. ORS 9.220(2)(b). We recognize Mr. Kraus's difficulty in disassociating himself from the office when his wife remained an employee and she continued to have contact with his former clients. And the geographical proximity of his home to the office made it more difficult to break old habits. However, we find from the evidence that petitioner deliberately placed himself in a position where he was likely to come in contact with his former clients and the clients of Mr. Boland. Moreover, petitioner was less than forthright with his former clients regarding his suspension, and his practice of visiting the office, meeting with former clients and arranging meetings for potential clients of Mr. Boland's placed him in the position of giving the impression that he was indeed practicing law. Petitioner, in fact, admits he did not tell his former clients he was suspended from the practice of law. Petitioner contends throughout these proceedings that neither the Bar nor this court has given guidelines to suspended attorneys on what action they should take regarding their clients upon suspension. Although Legal Ethics Opinions are only advisory in nature we point out that Opinions 106-109 have some relevance to whether a suspended attorney may continue to engage in legal work. Opinion 106 states, quoting from The Committee on Professional Ethics of the City of New York: When a lawyer has been found to lack the moral qualities required for his office, and has been stripped of the privilege to practice, it is better for society that his connection with the profession be severed completely, than that the law should be a field for his personal rehabilitation. And Opinion 107 states, The duty of the suspended attorney    was to advise each of the clients that he could not further handle his case and that it would be necessary for the client to obtain another attorney. The American Bar Association's Standards for Lawyer Discipline and Disability Proceedings is very specific on this subject. 6.11 Notification of Clients and Counsel. In every case in which a respondent is ordered to be disbarred or suspended for more than six months, the court should order that the respondent shall, within a prescribed period of time: (a) notify all clients and any co-counsel in pending matters that the respondent has been disbarred, suspended, or transferred to disability inactive status and consequently has been disqualified; (b) in the absence of co-counsel, notify his clients to seek legal advice elsewhere, calling attention to any urgency in seeking the substitution of another lawyer; (c) deliver to all clients being represented in pending matters any papers or other property to which they are entitled or notify them and any co-counsel of a suitable time and place where the papers and other property may be obtained, calling attention to any urgency for obtaining the papers or other property; (d) refund any part of any fees paid in advance that have not been earned; (e) notify opposing counsel in pending litigation or, in the absence of such counsel, the adverse parties, of the respondent's disbarment or suspension and consequent disqualification to act as a lawyer after the effective date of such discipline or transfer to disability inactive status; (f) file with the court, agency, or tribunal before which the litigation is pending a copy of the notice to opposing counsel or adverse parties; (g) keep and maintain records of the steps taken to accomplish the foregoing; and (h) file proof with the court and the agency of complete performance of the foregoing. In cases in which a respondent is to be suspended for six months or less, the court may impose similar conditions. COMMENTARY These notice provisions are necessary to ensure that the respondent's inability to practice does not prejudice the rights of existing clients or other parties, and that those who might otherwise have occasion to deal with the lawyer are made aware of his suspension or disbarment. Compliants with the notice provision is an absolute precondition for reinstatement or readmission, and failure to comply may be grounds for further discipline. See, court ordering discipline in In the Matter of Riccio, [56 A.D.2d 668] 391 N.Y.S.2d 199 (Third Department, 1976); see also Standard 13.3. We are in agreement with this policy statement and in the future we will apply the American Bar Association's suggestion that our decisions direct suspended lawyers to take appropriate action to notify clients and counsel of a suspension. A suspended attorney should cover or remove any office sign. A sign identifying a law office and a person as an attorney gives the impression that one is qualified to practice and invites the public to seek legal advice. Appropriate action should be taken to prevent that from occurring. [5] We recognize it is often impossible to have a telephone directory listing changed, particularly where the suspension is for a shorter period. However, in the case of a sole practitioner it is possible to have the service temporarily disconnected, reserving the same number for later use. That could have been done in this case and Mr. Boland could have secured his own phone with a separate number. Mr. Kraus testified that he frequently stopped by the office and there is some evidence that he, in fact, made use of one of the offices. Continued occupancy in one's law office after being suspended from practice can well give the appearance of practicing law. We are not prepared to say that a suspended attorney may never use his office, for this, standing alone, does not indicate the continued practice of law. If all other precautions we have set out above are taken and if the suspended attorney consciously avoids contact with former clients or clients of other attorneys in the office there may be no harm in using the office for other purposes. [6] That does not appear, however, to have been the case here. We point out that this court has from time to time remarked on the high standard of conduct required of persons in the legal profession. In In re Steffen, 279 Or. 313, 317, 567 P.2d 544 (1977) we said, The degree of truthfulness expected from a lawyer is higher than that expected from others. The highest standard of conduct is necessary to retain the trust and confidence of the general public. In re Albright, 274 Or. 815, 549 P.2d 527 (1976). See also In re Pennington, 220 Or. 343, 348 P.2d 774 (1960). Petitioner has not met this standard. We find petitioner's actions in continuing to have contact with former clients, in arranging for legal representation for an individual, in communicating with other lawyers regarding the continued processing of cases, and in failing candidly to inform his clients of his suspended status render him an unfit applicant for reinstatement. The question now is whether a simple rejection of petitioner's application for reinstatement is sufficient. We may modify the order of the Disciplinary Review Board. ORS 9.535(3). We have warned on at least one occasion that unethical conduct has cumulative consequences. In re Lee, 242 Or. 302, 307, 409 P.2d 337 (1965). Because we find that petitioner did not comply with our previous order of suspension we conclude a denial of his reinstatement application is not adequate. In this case both the public and its confidence in the administration of justice are best protected by now compelling compliance with the previously imposed suspension order. The petition for reinstatement is denied and petitioner is prohibited from again petitioning for reinstatement until one year from the date of this decision and until he has successfully passed the Professional Responsibility Examination. See Rules for Admission of Attorneys 4.05. The Oregon State Bar is awarded costs.