Oregon Supreme Court
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of John Bourceer, Accused
February 1, 1996322 Or. 561
Summary
The court treated the allegations in the amended disciplinary complaint as true because the accused defaulted, found him guilty of five disciplinary-rule violations, and suspended him from practicing law for three years. The violations arose from neglecting an appointed criminal appeal, making false representations about consultation with the client, prejudicing the administration of justice, knowingly making false statements, and failing to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. The court selected the sanction by applying the ABA Standards, considering actual injury and numerous aggravating factors.
Holding
- Neglect of a legal matter. The accused violated the rule prohibiting neglect of a legal matter by failing to communicate with the client, pursue the appeal, advise the client about a pro se brief, inform him of the dismissal, and respond to his inquiries.
- Dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The accused violated the prohibition on dishonest conduct by representing that he had consulted with the client before seeking dismissal of the appeal and had telephoned the client on other occasions when neither representation was true.
- Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The accused violated the prohibition on conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice because his misrepresentations interfered with the appeal process, impaired orderly resolution of the appeal, and caused substantial harm to the client and the administration of justice.
- Knowingly making a false statement of law or fact. The accused violated the prohibition on knowingly making a false statement by falsely telling the court that he had consulted with the client about the appeal and had determined that no meritorious appellate issues existed.
- Failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation. The accused violated his duty to respond fully and truthfully to the Bar's disciplinary inquiries by failing to respond to repeated requests from disciplinary counsel and the local professional responsibility committee.
- Appropriate disciplinary sanction. A three-year suspension from the practice of law was warranted.
Docket OSB 94-71; SC S42594
Cited by
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Kenneth Miles Jaffee, Accused
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of William T. Rhodes, Accused
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of William M. Parker, Accused
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Richard F. Crist, Accused
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of John G. Meyer, Accused
- In Re Jaffee
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of John Bourcier, Accused
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Dennis J. Sousa, Accused