Oregon Supreme Court
In Re: Complaint as to the Conduct of Donald W. Chambers, Accused
March 16, 1982292 Or. 670
Summary
The court independently reviewed the disciplinary record and found clear and convincing evidence that Chambers neglected Hartel's legal matter, inadequately prepared and investigated Willhite's criminal defense, and knowingly misrepresented himself as an insurance agent to Thatcher. It rejected other specifications that were redundant, unsupported, or improperly pleaded. The court imposed a two-year suspension followed by reinstatement proceedings requiring an affirmative showing of fitness.
Holding
- Standard governing the court's disciplinary review. The court must independently review the evidence, afford the accused a presumption of innocence, and require clear and convincing proof of the charges.
- Hartel representation. Chambers violated the rule against neglecting a legal matter by failing to properly prepare the summons, failing to comply with the trial court's conditions concerning its return, and failing to communicate with Hartel. The court did not find violations based on the alleged failure to effect service or proceed before the statute of limitations, and it did not find violations requiring intentional or knowing conduct because only negligent conduct was alleged.
- Willhite criminal defense. Chambers violated the disciplinary rules by failing to investigate the facts adequately before trial and by failing to request an instruction on the use of physical force in self-defense. The record did not establish that he failed to prepare other necessary instructions, failed to take exceptions, failed to account for his physical condition, handled a matter beyond his competence without assistance, or intentionally prejudiced Willhite.
- Misrepresentation to Thatcher and discipline. Chambers violated the rule prohibiting knowingly false statements of fact by telling Thatcher that he was an insurance agent for the van's owner. Considering that misconduct together with the neglect and ineffective representation, and treating his physical condition as mitigation, the court suspended him for two years and required an affirmative showing before reinstatement.
Docket OSB 79-62, SC 28183
Cited by
- Henry A. Taylor, Iii v. Commissioner of Mental Health and Mental Retardation
- Inquiry Concerning a Judge re: the Honorable Vance D. DAY
- Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Thomas J. Mooney
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Barry L. Taub, Accused
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of James H. Lewelling, Accused
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Daniel J. Gatti, Accused
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of L. Britton Eadie, Accused
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of William H. Kinsey, Accused