Court Opinion

ID: 836004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-03-01 21:12:45.129518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:26.480746
License: Public Domain

*630
   
  PER CURIAM
 

  In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, the Oregon State Bar (Bar) alleged that the accused violated the following: Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule (DR) 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice); DR 1-103(C) (failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigation); DR 2-110(A) (2) (withdrawing from employment without taking reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to client); DR 2-110(B)(2) (knowingly engaging in employment that lawyer knows violates disciplinary rules); DR 6-101 (A) (providing incompetent representation to client); DR 6-101 (B) (neglecting legal matter entrusted to lawyer); DR 7-101 (A)(2) (failing to carry out contract entered into with client for professional services); DR 7-101 (A)(3) (prejudicing or damaging lawyer’s client during course of professional relationship); DR 7-102 (A) (2) (knowingly advancing claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law); DR 7-106(A) (disregarding or advising client to disregard standing rule of a tribunal); and ORS 9.527(3) (willfully disobeying court order).
 

  On August 30, 2001, the Bar served the accused’s lawyer with a formal complaint and a notice to answer. The accused failed to appear in the time provided by the Bar Rules of Procedure and failed to submit a resignation. On January 17, 2002, the Bar served the accused’s lawyer with a second amended formal complaint. The accused again failed to file an answer, appear, or submit his resignation. A trial panel of the Disciplinary Board entered a default order on March 7, 2002. In a subsequent sanctions hearing, the trial panel deemed the Bar’s allegations of misconduct to be true and concluded that the accused should be disbarred.
 

  On die
  
   novo
  
  review of the record, we agree with the trial panel that the accused should be disbarred.
  
   1
  

  The accused is disbarred.
 

   1
  

   An exhaustive discussion of the accused’s multiple acts of misconduct would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public.