S53254 In re Coyner

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Oregon » 2006 » S53254 In re Coyner

S53254 In re Coyner

State: Oregon

Docket No: OSB03-49,03-57,04-103;SCS53254

Case Date: 12/14/2006

FILED: December 14, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

In re Complaint as to the Conduct of

CRAIG C. COYNER, III,

Accused.

(OSB 03-49, 03-57, 04-103; SC S53254)

On review of the decision of a trial panel of the Disciplinary Board.

Argued and submitted September 7, 2006.

Craig C. Coyner, III, Bend, argued the cause and filed the brief for himself.

Stacy J. Hankin, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Lake Oswego, argued the cause and filed the brief for the Oregon State Bar.

Before De Muniz, Chief Justice, and Carson, Gillette, Durham, Balmer, and Kistler, Justices.*

PER CURIAM

The accused is suspended from the practice of law for three months, effective 60 days from the date of this decision. Should he apply for reinstatement to the Bar, the accused shall be required to follow the procedure set out in Bar Rule 8.1(b).

*Riggs, J., retired September 30, 2006, and did not participate in the decision of this case. Walters, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

PER CURIAM

This is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding in which the accused was found guilty by a trial panel of a total of nine violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (1) arising out of three separate matters. The trial panel imposed a six- month suspension from the practice of law, with the further provision that the accused be required to apply for reinstatement formally. The accused appeals from that decision. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial panel's findings respecting the accused's guilt, but modify its choice of sanction.

We make the following preliminary observations. The accused's brief raises three different kinds of issues. The first kind of issue involves various procedural concerns about the course of the trial panel proceedings. We have considered the accused's concerns, but find no basis for concluding that any of them affected the quality or accuracy of the proceeding, or in any way prejudiced the accused. A more complete explanation of them would not benefit the public, the bench, or the bar.

The second kind of issue that the accused presents revolves around the question of his guilt of the charges against him. However, as we shall explain, a stipulation by the accused at the beginning of the trial panel hearing process significantly limits our review of those matters.

The third kind of issue involves the question of sanction. Unfortunately, although the accused raised the issues, he failed to develop them in any substantive way in his brief and did little more during his oral presentation to this court. However, the Bar has briefed the matter extensively, and the bulk of the hearing before the trial panel was devoted to that question. We therefore have a sufficient record, even with only limited assistance from the accused, to assess and assign an appropriate sanction for the accused's conduct.

I. BACKGROUND AND DISCIPLINARY VIOLATIONS

We turn to a discussion of the background facts and the charges against the accused. As noted, the Bar charged the accused with nine violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility arising out of three separate matters. The accused stipulated at the beginning of the hearing before the trial panel that the Bar could prove the facts alleged in its Amended Formal Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. The trial panel therefore found the accused guilty in each matter. In spite of that stipulation, the accused appears (at least in his brief) to take exception to certain of the findings of guilt. We review the facts of each of the matters briefly. (The facts stated either were stipulated to or otherwise appear to be uncontested.)

The accused is a Bend area lawyer with 32 years of experience. He has a history of bipolar disorder, which went incorrectly diagnosed for a time. That misdiagnosis appears to have played some role in the difficulties that arose between the accused and the Bar, although the accused does not assert (and we do not independently find) that his condition excuses his conduct.

A. The Amos Matter

The accused was appointed to represent Amos in an appeal. For nearly a year, the accused had no communication with Amos and took no action with respect to the appeal. The Court of Appeals notified the accused that, unless he made a showing to justify continuing the appeal, it would be dismissed. The accused made no effort to make that showing and the appeal was dismissed. The accused did not notify Amos of that fact; Amos learned of it from an independent source nearly four months later. Based on the foregoing, the Bar charged (and the trial panel found) that the accused was guilty of, among other things, neglect of a legal matter, DR 6-101(B).

Given his stipulation that the Bar could prove the underlying facts by clear and convincing evidence, the accused has no ground on which to challenge the factual basis for the trial panel's finding of guilt. He does argue, however, that (1) there was no arguable legal merit to the Amos appeal; (2) he therefore could not ethically have pursued it; and (3) it follows that he could not be found guilty of neglect of a matter "that he could not ethically nor legally pursue." That is not the law. The lawyer must communicate bad news as well as good to the client, and failing to do so in a timely manner is neglect of a legal matter. See, e.g., In re Geurts, 290 Or 241, 246 n 6, 620 P2d 1373 (1980) (lawyer's opinion that client's case lacked merit did not excuse neglect, at least to extent of so informing client). We find the accused guilty of neglect in his handling of the Amos matter.

The trial panel also found the accused guilty of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, DR 1-102(A)(4), in connection with the Amos matter, based on his failure to respond to a show cause order and other inquiries by the Court of Appeals. The accused does not offer any discernable defense with respect to that charge. We find him guilty of violating DR 1-102(A)(4).

B. The Muschitz Matter

Muschitz, an Ohio resident, hired the accused to attempt to obtain a modification of a child support obligation imposed on Muschitz by an Oregon decree. During the ensuing proceedings, the opposing lawyer filed a motion to require Muschitz to produce certain documents. Muschitz supplied some of -- but not all -- the documents to the accused, who then failed to provide them to the opposing lawyer. Eventually, that failure led to a motion by the opposing lawyer to dismiss Muschitz's case. The accused did not inform Muschitz of the motion and did not respond to the motion on Muschitz's behalf. When the trial court allowed the motion, the accused did not inform Muschitz of that fact or of the fact that the trial court had included a judgment against Muschitz. The trial panel found that the conduct described constituted neglect of a legal matter and that the accused had violated DR 6-101(B).

The accused's only defense to the above charge is the same defense that he offered in the Amos case -- there was no merit to Muschitz's legal position and, therefore, the accused could not ethically pursue it. As we have explained with respect to the Amos matter, however, that argument is unresponsive to the charge and we reject it. As did the trial panel, we find the accused guilty of neglecting a legal matter in the Muschitz litigation.

The Bar also charged the accused in the Muschitz matter with violating two other disciplinary rules -- DR 9-101(A) (failure to deposit client funds in a trust account) and DR 9-101(C)(3) (failure to render appropriate accountings to a client). The charges arose out of the fact that Muschitz sent the accused two checks totaling $1,000 for work that the accused would perform in the case, to be earned by the accused at the rate of $150 per hour. The accused deposited one of those checks in his general account before having earned all of it and did not deposit the other check in his client trust account at all. After Muschitz repeatedly asked the accused for an accounting, the accused gave an accounting orally but never reduced the accounting to writing.

So far as we understand them, the accused's only arguments respecting the foregoing facts are that (1) he only transferred a small amount of money to his own account before it was earned; (2) although his records are insufficient to prove it, the transfer may have been justified in full; and (3) he thought that an oral accounting would be enough. However, those arguments are contrary to the accused's stipulations concerning the Bar's evidence. We find the accused guilty of those two additional violations.

The Bar's investigation of the Muschitz matter led to one more charge, this one involving failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation, DR 1-103(C). The stipulated facts are that the accused failed on at least two separate occasions to provide information related to the Bar's investigation. (2) The accused acknowledges as much, but asserts that the Bar wanted too much too fast, given the accused's fragile (and misdiagnosed) mental health condition. Even if that were true at the outset of the Bar's investigation, however, the accused does not appear to have asked for more time during the investigation, even after he hired another lawyer to help him. We find the accused guilty of violating DR 1-103(C) in the Muschitz matter.

C. The Accused's Criminal Charges

On December 15, 2003, the accused was charged with resisting arrest and criminal mischief. The accused was released conditionally pending trial. One condition of that release prohibited the accused from consuming alcohol and visiting bars and taverns. Within a month, the accused twice violated that condition by consuming alcohol. The accused was charged with contempt of court respecting each of the two alcohol consumption incidents. Eventually, the accused pleaded no contest to the resisting arrest charge and the two contempt charges. He was found guilty on all three charges and was placed on probation for 24 months. Thereafter, the Bar requested information about the episode from the accused. The accused failed to respond.

The Bar asserted, and the trial panel found, that the facts underlying the accused's contempt convictions constituted a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct prejudicial to administration of justice) and DR 7-106(A) (disregard of tribunal's ruling during course of proceeding). Based on the accused's failure to respond to the Bar's inquiries, the Bar also asserted, and the trial panel also found, that the accused had violated DR 1-103(C) (failure to cooperate in Bar investigation).

The accused's only defense to those disciplinary charges is that he could not have been guilty of the two contempt offenses because there were irregularities respecting the charging instruments. It follows, he reasons, that the release agreement respecting those offenses that was the basis of the two contempt charges was derivatively invalid and, therefore, he could not legally have been in contempt of anything.

What the accused is doing here is mounting a collateral attack on the charges of which he was convicted. The accused did not appeal those convictions. And, as this court has explained in other settings, an unappealed conviction ordinarily becomes a verity when the time for appeal has run. See ORS 9.527 (providing that conviction of certain types of offense is grounds for disbarment, suspension from Bar membership, or reprimand, and stating that, in such matters, "the record of the conviction shall be conclusive evidence"). See also State v. Probst, 339 Or 612, 626-25, 124 P3d 1237 (2006) (illustrating that rule). Nothing about the subject matter of the present proceeding or the nature of the accused's collateral attack suggests that the ordinary rule should not apply. The time for the accused's appeal of the two contempt convictions -- if there were to have been one -- elapsed years ago. He cannot now attack the charging instruments collaterally. We find the accused guilty of violating DR 1-102(A)(4), DR 7-106(A), and DR 1-103(C) in the 2003 criminal matter.

In summary, we find the accused guilty of each disciplinary violation that the Bar alleged. We turn to the issue of sanction.

II. SANCTION

As noted, the trial panel imposed a six-month suspension, with the proviso that the accused be required to make a formal application for reinstatement. In selecting that sanction, the trial panel appears to have fully credited evidence offered by the accused that, during the period in question, the accused was suffering from both an incorrectly diagnosed mental condition and a chemical dependency problem. (The trial panel specifically noted that both problems now seem to be under control, due in significant part to the accused's own efforts.) Respecting the sanction, the accused asks only that this court modify the sanction to five years' probation under a set of conditions that have been recommended by a psychiatrist who examined him. For its part, the Bar simply notes that the sanction that the trial panel imposed is within the parameters set both by the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991) (amended 1992) (ABA Standards) and by this court's case law. In addition, the Bar particularly urges that the accused be required to go through the formal reinstatement process, in order better to ensure that the accused is mentally fit to practice law.

A. Methodology

The trial panel correctly considered the ABA Standards and this court's case law in seeking to identify the appropriate sanction. We follow the same paradigm. See, e.g., In re Paulson, 341 Or 13, 29, 136 P3d 1087 (2006) (describing paradigm). This court considers three factors set out in the ABA Standards: (1) the duty violated; (2) the lawyer's mental state; and (3) the actual or potential injury caused by the misconduct. ABA Standard 3.0. Based on its evaluation of those factors, the court then arrives at a tentative sanction, which it adjusts, where appropriate, based on aggravating or mitigating circumstances. See Paulson, 341 Or at 29-34 (illustrating process).

B. Duties Violated

The most important duties that a lawyer owes are those owed to the client. ABA Standards at 5. In his case, the accused failed in his duty both to Amos and to Muschitz when he neglected their legal matters. He further failed in his duty to Muschitz when he mishandled funds in Muschitz's case and then failed to account for them appropriately.

The accused also violated duties that he owed to the legal system to avoid conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in both the Amos case and the criminal matter. Equally serious was his failure to obey court orders.

Finally, the accused violated his duty to the profession in both the Amos and Muschitz matters when he failed to cooperate with the Bar's investigations.

C. Mental State

As to the mental state element, we agree with the trial panel and the Bar that the accused acted knowingly when he neglected the Amos legal matter and intentionally when he failed to respond to the order to show cause in that case. In the Muschitz matter, we find the majority of the accused's violations to have been knowing, with the exception of his failure to cooperate with the Bar's investigation: We find that latter violation to have been intentional. The accused's violation of DR 9-101(A) (respecting his failure to deposit client funds in a trust account) was negligent. In the criminal case, the accused acted intentionally.

D. Injury

An injury can be either actual or potential. ABA Standards at 6-7; In re Williams, 314 Or 530, 547, 840 P2d 1280 (1992). Here, the accused's violations caused actual injury to both Amos and Muschitz. The Bar also was injured by the accused's failure to cooperate, because the Bar was required to engage in efforts that should not have been necessary to complete its investigations. The accused's actions in the criminal matter injured the legal system itself by requiring contempt proceedings.

E. Preliminary Sanction

The combination of (for the most part) intentional and knowing mental states with actual injury caused suggests that, at the least, a significant period of suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case. ABA Standard 4.42(a) (suspension appropriate when lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for client and causes actual potential injury to client); ABA Standard 6.22 (suspension appropriate when lawyer violates court order and there is actual or potential injury to client or legal proceeding); ABA Standard 7.2 (suspension appropriate when lawyer violates duty to profession and causes actual or potential injury to legal system). With that kind of presumptive sanction in mind, we turn to the aggravating and mitigating factors.

F. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

The trial panel found several aggravating factors and two mitigating ones. Although we do not in every instance agree with the trial panel's assessments, we conclude that the various factors are sufficiently balanced so that they leave the presumptive sanction -- suspension -- unaffected. We discuss one mitigating factor -- mental disability or chemical dependency -- fully, because the accused relies heavily on that factor with respect to the issue of sanction.

The trial panel found that there was medical evidence of both mental disability and chemical dependency (alcoholism) and that both conditions caused or contributed to the underlying misconduct. See ABA Standard 9.32(i)(1), (2) (amended 1992). The Bar disagrees with the trial panel insofar as it relies on chemical dependency as a mitigating factor. The Bar does not dispute that chemical dependence played a role in the accused's disciplinary rule violations. It points out, however, that, in order for chemical dependency to be considered in mitigation of a disciplinary rule violation, the record must show not only that that condition played a role, but also that (1) the accused since that time has experienced a meaningful and sustained period of successful rehabilitation; and (2) the recovery is such that recurrence of the misconduct is unlikely. See ABA Standard 9.32(i)(3), (4) (amended 1992) (setting those requirements); In re Cohen (Cohen II), 330 Or 489, 502-03, 8 P3d 953 (2000) (explaining requirements).

The trial panel concluded that the accused had met the foregoing test. In so concluding, it relied on testimony from a psychiatrist, the head of the Bar's own Oregon Attorney Assistance Program, and a number of the accused's fellow lawyers, all to the effect that the accused met the Cohen II standard. The Bar, on the other hand, relies on testimony from two other experts that casts significant doubt on the optimistic assessments on which the trial panel relied.

A detailed recitation and review of the evidence in question would not benefit the parties, the public, the Bar, or the bench. It is sufficient here for us to say that, having reviewed all the evidence de novo, we do not find it to preponderate in favor of the accused on the issue. Certainly, the accused has made significant strides. But those strides are too recent and too incomplete to satisfy us that the accused has achieved remission. Given that assessment of the record, the accused has failed to show that the mitigating factor of chemical dependency is present.

G. Case Law

We turn to this court's case law. Our previous cases indicate that some period of suspension is appropriate. See, e.g., In re LaBahn, 335 Or 357, 359-67, 67 P3d 381 (2003) (lawyer previously admonished for violating DR 6-101(B) given 60-day suspension for violating same rule); In re Meyer II, 328 Or 220, 970 P2d 647 (1999) (lawyer previously reprimanded for neglect of legal matter given one-year suspension for again violating DR 6-101(B)). Certainly, under the precedents, the number and breadth of the accused's rule violations also calls for a suspension. (3)

As to the length of the sanction, the one that the trial panel chose doubtless is within the acceptable range. However, both the trial panel's choice of sanction and our own reading of the record suggest that the accused has a very good chance of recovering from his problems and resuming his position as a respected member of his legal community. We do not think that a suspension of more than three months is necessary to make it possible to assess the accused's condition and his ability to rejoin the profession. We therefore suspend the accused for three months. We think that, when that sanction is coupled with the requirement that the accused go through the formal reinstatement process, the public will be adequately protected and, at the same time, the accused will have a reasonable opportunity to show that he has overcome his dependency and is once again fit to practice law. (4)

The accused is suspended from the practice of law for three month, effective 60 days from the date of this decision. Should he apply for reinstatement to the Bar, the accused shall be required to follow the procedure set out in Bar Rule 8.1(b).

1. The Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct became effective January 1, 2005. Because the conduct at issue in this case occurred before that date, we apply the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Return to previous location.

2. One occasion was the accused's failure to make his Muschitz file available. A Local Professional Responsibility Committee (LPRC) eventually had to subpoena the file.

Return to previous location.

3. The accused argues otherwise, seeking instead to have this court reinstate him conditionally, subject to a long period of probation. However, the assumption underlying that alternative approach is that we will be convinced, on this record, not only that the accused has eliminated his chemical dependancy problem, but also that he will be unlikely to suffer a relapse. As we elsewhere have indicated, however, we are not sufficiently satisfied as to the first point and therefore cannot have the requisite degree of confidence as to the second. It follows that we do not accept the accused's suggested sanction.

Return to previous location.

4. Ordinarily, a member of the Bar who has been suspended for misconduct for a period of six months or less would be reinstated upon the filing of a Compliance Affidavit. BR 8.3. However, as BR 8.3 acknowledges, this court may give other directions for reinstatement.

Return to previous location.

Preview:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Filed: June 30, 2011 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON In Re: Complaint as to the Conduct of J. MARK LAWRENCE, Accused. (OSB 08-115; SC S058778) En Banc On review of the decision of a trial panel of the Disciplinary Board. Argued and submitted May 2, 2011. Paula Lawrence, McMinnville, argued and cause and filed the briefs for accused. Stacy Hankin, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Tigard, argued the cause and filed the brief for the Oregon State Bar. PER CURIAM The complaint is dismissed. PER CURIAM The issue in this lawyer disciplinary proceeding is whether the accused, by releasing a partial transcript of a juvenile hearing to the press, violated Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 8.4(a)(4), which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. A trial panel found the accused guilty of violating RPC 8.4(a)(4) and suspended him for 60 days. We review the decision of the trial panel de novo. ORS 9.536(2); BR 10.6. Because we conclude that

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

the Bar failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the accused's conduct caused prejudice to the administration of justice, we dismiss the complaint. The facts are straightforward and largely undisputed. In 2007, the accused represented a juvenile male who, along with another male friend, allegedly had touched or swatted several female classmates on the buttocks and had danced in front of the females in a lascivious manner. The incident occurred at the students' middle school. After being informed of the youths' behavior, the vice principal and a police officer interviewed the victims. Based on those interviews, the accused's client and his friend were arrested by a McMinnville Police Officer on February 22, 2007. On February 23, the Yamhill County Juvenile Department filed a delinquency petition alleging that the accused's client had committed acts that, if done by an adult, would have constituted five counts of first-degree sexual abuse and five counts of third-degree sexual abuse. At an initial detention hearing that same day, the court ordered the youths to remain in custody. The events giving rise to this disciplinary action arose out of a second detention hearing held on February 27, 2007, before Judge John Collins. The accused called two of the victims to testify on behalf of his client. The female victims testified that the youths were their friends and that they did not find the youths to be threatening in any way. Regarding the alleged sexual abuse, the female victims testified that the touching or swatting was not sexual in nature but rather was mere horseplay. The victims also testified that they felt pressured by the vice principal and the police officer to make the touching sound hurtful and uncomfortable when it was not. By the second detention hearing, the case was receiving substantial media 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

attention. Judge Collins allowed the press to attend the detention hearing, but prohibited the press from recording the proceedings. The parties dispute whether the judge prohibited only video recordings or also prohibited audio recordings.1 A number of newspaper and television stories reported the events and testimony at the hearing. After the hearing, the accused obtained a copy of the official audio recording of the hearing and had a partial transcript prepared that contained the victims' testimony. In March 2007, a reporter contacted the accused about the February 27 hearing. The reporter, who was not present at the hearing, expressed disbelief that the female victims had felt pressured by the vice principal and the police officer to make the youths' actions seem sexual. The accused offered to give the reporter a copy of the partial transcript when it was available. The accused believed that it would have been improper to give the reporter the official audio recording of the hearing but thought that the transcript could be released. The accused contacted Deborah Markham, the deputy district attorney handling the case, to see if she objected to releasing the transcript. Markham told the accused that she believed that the court would have to consent. The accused then released the transcript to the reporter without obtaining permission from Judge Collins. Deputy District Attorney Deborah Markham testified that Judge Collins prohibited video recording. Judge Collins testified that he might have prohibited the press from recording the detention hearing, but that he did not remember whether he did so or not. He did remember allowing video recording at a later hearing in the proceeding. The accused testified that Judge Collins prohibited video recording but that he could not remember if the judge prohibited audio recording.
1

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

When Judge Collins learned that the transcript had been released -following news reports that cited the transcript -- he called a meeting with Markham and the accused and told them to release no other transcripts. The testimony from the accused, Markham, and Judge Collins differs regarding that meeting. The accused described the meeting as relaxed and said that Judge Collins had stated that the release of the transcript was permissible. Markham testified that Judge Collins was "very concerned" about the release of the transcript and that Judge Collins said that the accused's disclosure violated the law. Judge Collins testified that the accused did not get his consent to release the transcript, but that he was not sure if the accused needed to do so under the circumstances of the case, particularly given the presence of the press at the hearing. In Judge Collins's description, the meeting was not contentious; although he requested that the parties refrain from releasing any additional transcripts, he did not "feel like [he] needed to be firm" and so did not issue an order barring further releases. In April 2008, several months after the juvenile case was resolved, Tim Loewen, director of the Yamhill County Juvenile Department, reported the accused's action of releasing the transcript to the Bar. After investigating the matter, the Bar charged the accused with violating RPC 8.4(a)(4)2 by releasing to the press "information
2

RPC 8.4(a) provides, in relevant part: "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: "* * * * * "(4) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

appearing in the record" of a juvenile case without court consent, in violation of ORS 419A.255(1) and (3).3 The Bar alleged that the accused had "usurped" Judge Collins's authority to control the proceeding by not seeking the court's consent before releasing the transcript, and thereby had caused prejudice to the administration of justice. In the proceeding before the trial panel, the accused argued that his release of the transcript did not violate ORS 419A.255 for each of three independent reasons: (1) the transcript that he had prepared was not a part of the record of the case and so was not subject to ORS 419A.255; (2) Judge Collins had consented to the release of the information contained in the transcript when he allowed the press to attend and report on

justice[.]"
3

ORS 419A.255 provides, in relevant part:

"(1) The clerk of the court shall keep a record of each case, including therein the summons and other process, the petition and all other papers in the nature of pleadings, motions, orders of the court and other papers filed with the court, but excluding reports and other material relating to the child, ward, youth or youth offender's history and prognosis. The record of the case shall be withheld from public inspection but is open to inspection by the child, ward, youth, youth offender, parent, guardian, court appointed special advocate, surrogate or a person allowed to intervene in a proceeding involving the child, ward, youth or youth offender, and their attorneys. The attorneys are entitled to copies of the record of the case. "* * * * * "(3) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (7) of this section, no information appearing in the record of the case or in reports or other material relating to the child, ward, youth or youth offender's history or prognosis may be disclosed to any person not described in subsection (2) of this section without the consent of the court * * * ."

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

the hearing; and (3) the information in the transcript could be released under ORS 419A.255(5)(b) and (d), which list certain exceptions to the confidentiality of juvenile records. Even assuming that he did violate ORS 419A.255, the accused asserted, he did not violate RPC 8.4(a)(4), because his conduct was not prejudicial to the administration of justice. That was so, according to the accused, because the defendant and the victims supported releasing the transcript and because the information contained in the transcript had already been made public as a result of the press attending and reporting on the hearing. Thus, in the accused's view, no harm -- actual or potential -- resulted from his conduct. The trial panel found by clear and convincing evidence that the accused had violated RPC 8.4(a)(4) and suspended the accused from the practice of law for 60 days. The trial panel first determined that ORS 419A.255(3) prohibited the accused from releasing the partial transcript to the press without the consent of the trial court and that the accused had violated the statute in doing so. With little discussion, the trial panel then found that the evidence that the accused had violated the statute also was sufficient to show prejudice to the administration of justice and thus that the accused had violated RPC 8.4(a)(4). The accused sought review in this court. To prove a violation of RPC 8.4(a)(4), the Bar must prove (1) that the accused lawyer's action or inaction was improper; (2) that the accused lawyer's conduct occurred during the course of a judicial proceeding; and (3) that the accused lawyer's conduct had or could have had a prejudicial effect upon the administration of justice. See In re Kluge, 335 Or 326, 345, 66 P3d 492 (2003) (citing In re Haws, 310 Or 741, 746-48, 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

801 P2d 818 (1990)) (so stating for identically worded former DR 1-102(A)(4)). Because we find the issue to be dispositive, we begin by examining the third element -- whether the accused's conduct had or could have had a prejudicial effect on the administration of justice -- and assume, without deciding, that the accused's conduct violated ORS 419A.255(3) and otherwise satisfied the test set out in Kluge and Haws. Prejudice to the administration of justice "may arise from several acts that cause some harm or a single act that causes substantial harm to the administration of justice." Kluge, 335 Or at 345. This court has identified two components to the "administration" of justice: "1) The procedural functioning of the proceeding; and 2) the substantive interest of a party in the proceeding." Haws, 310 Or at 747. "A lawyer's conduct could have a prejudicial effect on either component or both." Id. The Bar argues that the accused's conduct, a single act, resulted in prejudice to the administration of justice because it had the potential to cause substantial harm to the procedural functioning of the court. The Bar asserts, "Substantial potential harm to the administration of justice occurs whenever a lawyer interferes in or usurps the court's ability to do its job in a proceeding pending before it." The Bar states that the accused "usurped" the court's authority by not seeking Judge Collins's consent prior to releasing the transcript. The Bar cites three disciplinary cases to support its position that the accused's conduct resulted in substantial potential harm to the administration of justice. First, in In re Eadie, 333 Or 42, 36 P3d 468 (2001), this court found a violation of former DR 1-102(A)(4) where the accused lawyer submitted a proposed order containing a 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

misrepresentation that was intended to influence the judge in changing the trial date. Id. at 58. That conduct substantially harmed the procedural functioning of the court because it resulted in the judge acquiescing to a trial date preferred by the accused and made it necessary for the judge to resolve a dispute resulting from the accused's misrepresentation and to redraft an order. Id. Second, in In re Morris, 326 Or 493, 953 P2d 387 (1998), this court concluded that the accused lawyer had engaged in a single act of conduct that had the potential to cause substantial harm, either to the procedural functioning of the court or to the substantive interests of the parties, when she knowingly filed a notarized document that she had altered. Id. at 502-03. Third, in In re Thompson, 325 Or 467, 940 P2d 512 (1997), this court found a violation of former DR 1-102(A)(4) where the accused lawyer physically confronted a judge after receiving an adverse decision. That conduct caused substantial harm to the administration of justice because the accused's ex parte communication with the judge "unfairly attack[ed] the independence, integrity, and respect due a member of the judiciary." Id. at 475. The conduct also had the potential to cause substantial harm, because it could have influenced the judge to change her decision or to recuse herself from the case. Id. In each of the preceding cases, the accused lawyer engaged in conduct that had the potential to disrupt or to improperly influence the court's decision-making process, Thompson, 325 Or at 475; that created unnecessary work for the court, Eadie, 333 Or at 58; or that had the potential to mislead the court, Morris, 326 Or at 503. Moreover, in Eadie and Morris, the accused lawyers made knowing misrepresentations to the court. Similarly, in Kluge, the accused lawyer's conduct in knowingly filing an 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

untimely motion to disqualify the trial judge and then failing to serve the motion on opposing counsel caused prejudice to "the procedural functioning of the judicial system by imposing a substantial burden upon both opposing counsel and [the trial judge] to undo the accused's actions." 335 Or at 346. In this case, the Bar has made no showing, as required by Kluge and Haws, that the accused's conduct harmed the procedural functioning of the judicial system, either by disrupting or improperly influencing the court's decision-making process or by creating unnecessary work or imposing a substantial burden on the court or the opposing party. Nor has the Bar shown that his conduct had the potential to result in any of the above. Certainly, Judge Collins did not testify that the accused's actions interfered with Judge Collins's conduct of the juvenile proceeding. Although the Bar correctly asserts that ORS 419A.255 gives the trial court control over the release of protected information in a juvenile record -- and, as noted, we assume without deciding that the accused acted improperly in not seeking the trial court's consent -- the Bar's theory fails to take into account the fact that the information contained in the partial transcript that the accused released was presented in open court and had already been reported by the press.4 It is difficult to see how the accused's release of the same information, in the context of this case, had the potential to cause any harm to the proceeding, much less substantial harm.

Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution grants members of the public, including the press, the right to attend juvenile hearings. State ex rel Oregonian Pub. Co. v. Deiz, 289 Or 277, 284-85, 613 P2d 23 (1980).

4

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

See Kluge, 335 Or at 345 (prejudice to the administration of justice may arise from "several acts that cause some harm or a single act that causes substantial harm"). Indeed, the Bar makes no effort to show that the accused's conduct could have resulted in new information being made public or that the release of the partial transcript itself had any potential impact on the proceeding. In fact, after the press attended the hearing and the accused released the transcript, Judge Collins allowed members of the press to listen to the official audio recording of the hearing. Nevertheless, the Bar asserts that Judge Collins was sufficiently "concerned" about the release of the information to call the accused and Markham to his chambers to discuss the incident. The fact that Judge Collins was "concerned" and met with the accused and Markham does not, by itself, demonstrate the potential for substantial harm to the procedural functioning of the court. Judge Collins himself stated that, although "in a perfect world," he probably would not have wanted the transcript released, in the context of this case and the open court provision of Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution, the release of the partial transcript was likely permissible without his consent because "if [the press is] * * * going to know the information and report the information, at least get it right." Judge Collins's testimony, then, does not demonstrate that the accused's conduct impacted the procedural functioning of the court, even if the accused's conduct was cause for "concern." Nor does the Bar offer any evidence to prove that the release of the partial transcript harmed the substantive interests of the accused's client, the victims, or the state. The accused released the transcript, with the support of his client, in response to an 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

inquiry from the media and in order to respond to inaccuracies appearing in some media reports. The accused maintained the confidentiality of the victims' names in the transcript, referring to them by their initials, consistent with an earlier order by Judge Collins. In this proceeding, the accused also submitted letters from the two victims who testified (and their parents) that stated their support for the release of the partial transcript. Finally, there was no testimony from the Yamhill County Juvenile Department that the release of the partial transcript had any effect on its substantive interests or its ability to prosecute the case. The Bar appears, instead, to take the position that virtually any violation of a statute, rule, or court order that occurs during the course of a court proceeding and relates to the conduct or any procedural aspect of that proceeding necessarily is prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Bar asserts, in effect, that "substantial potential" harm is implicit in the accused's conduct. Our cases, however, require proof by clear and convincing evidence that an accused's conduct in a specific judicial proceeding caused actual or potential harm to the administration of justice and, when only one wrongful act is charged, that actual or potential harm must be "substantial." Kluge, 335 Or at 345; Haws, 310 Or at 748. Here, the Bar's evidence did not prove that substantial harm resulted or could have resulted from the accused's conduct. We conclude that the Bar has not proved by clear and convincing evidence that the accused violated RPC 8.4(a)(4). The accused's conduct did not result in such prejudice, because there is no evidence that the release of the partial transcript, which contained solely information already presented in open court and reported by the press, 11

1 2 3 4 5 6

harmed the procedural functioning of the judicial system. Nor is there any evidence that the substantive rights of the accused's client, the other juvenile defendant, the victims, or the state were harmed. "Prejudice to the administration of justice" requires such a showing. Haws, 310 Or at 747-48. The complaint is dismissed.

12

Download S058778 In re Lawrence.pdf