In re Arbuckle

12 Citing cases

  1. In re Recker

    309 Or. 633 (Or. 1990)   Cited 16 times
    Declining to resolve dispute about whether conduct that had been found to violate DR 1-102 also violation DR 7-102, because sanction for first violation would not be enhanced by second finding

    See, e.g., In reArbuckle, 308 Or. 135, 139, 775 P.2d 832 (1989). In determining the appropriate sanction for lawyer misconduct, we examine four factors: (a) the nature of the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the actual or potential injury resulting from the lawyer's misconduct; and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.

  2. In re Obert

    336 Or. 640 (Or. 2004)   Cited 10 times
    Finding pattern of misconduct when accused lawyer had neglected several clients and committed multiple rule violations

    In the Cooper matter, the accused injured the Coopers by delaying their adoption and by failing to maintain contact with them. See, e.g., In re Arbuckle, 308 Or. 135, 140 775 P.2d 832 (1989) (injury to client in lawyer disciplinary case measured in terms of "time, anxiety, and aggravation" spent in trying to coax cooperation from accused lawyer). The Coopers and Sifuentez also were subject to the potential for injury as adverse parties who were represented simultaneously by the accused in separate matters.

  3. In re Schaffner

    325 Or. 421 (Or. 1997)   Cited 12 times
    Finding actual injury to a client in the form of anxiety and frustration when a lawyer refused to return original documents

    Further, because the accused failed to act in his client's behalf and resisted her repeated attempts to contact him, we conclude that the client suffered actual injury in the form of anxiety and frustration. See In re Arbuckle, 308 Or. 135, 140, 775 P.2d 832 (1989) (concluding that injury to a client in the form of time expended, anxiety, and aggravation constitutes injury under the ABA Standards). In failing to respond to the Bar's initial inquiries, the accused also caused injury to the legal profession and to the public.

  4. In re Schaffner

    323 Or. 472 (Or. 1996)   Cited 22 times
    Finding pattern of misconduct where accused repeatedly failed to respond or to take action to protect clients' interests and failed to answer Bar's continuing inquiries over considerable period of time

    The mitigating factors do not outweigh the aggravating factors, even though lack of a prior disciplinary record is a strong mitigating factor. Bar counsel relies on In re Arbuckle, 308 Or. 135, 775 P.2d 832 (1989), to support the Bar's position that failure to appear at the trial panel hearing is an aggravating factor. We disagree. Arbuckle states:

  5. In re Complaint as to the Conduct of Snyder

    348 Or. 307 (Or. 2010)   Cited 5 times

    Client anguish, uncertainty, anxiety, and aggravation are actual injury under the disciplinary rules. See In re Paulson, 346 Or 676, 717, 216 P3d 859 (2009), adh'd to as modified on recons, 347 Or 529, 225 P3d 41 (2010) (anguish and uncertainty are actual injury); In re Jones, 312 Or 611, 618, 825 P2d 1365 (1992) (client anxiety and aggravation are actual injury); In reArbuckle, 308 Or 135, 140, 775 P2d 832 (1989) (same). We find that the accused's actions caused actual injury to his client.

  6. In re Paulson

    346 Or. 676 (Or. 2009)   Cited 24 times
    Concluding missing panel member was “effectively ... in the position of an abstaining panel member” that “did not join in the opinion and ... did [not] dissent”

    But from that lawyer's description of the circumstances, the trial panel concluded that the client suffered additional actual injury in the form of "significant anguish and uncertainty" as a result of the accused's conduct. See In re Jones, 312 Or at 618 (client anxiety and aggravation is actual injury); In re Arbuckle, 308 Or 135, 140, 775 P2d 832 (1989) (same). We agree with the trial panel that, in the Loucks child custody matter, the injuries to the client were both actual and serious.

  7. In re Koch

    198 P.3d 910 (Or. 2008)   Cited 7 times
    Declining to give great weight to a single stipulated reprimand because of the multiple reasons that lawyers may agree to relatively light sanctions

    However, the accused's repeated failure to respond to her clients' reasonable requests did result in injuries to her clients, "measured in terms of time, anxiety, and aggravation, in attempting to coax cooperation from the accused." In re Arbuckle, 308 Or 135, 140, 775 P2d 832 (1989). Finally, the legal system suffered an injury as a result of the accused's failure to provide the requested information in the course of this disciplinary proceeding: the Bar unnecessarily expended resources in seeking to obtain the information.

  8. In Re: Worth

    336 Or. 256 (Or. 2003)   Cited 5 times
    Recognizing proposition

    A lawyer violates the rule by failing to return a client's files or other documents of importance to the client when asked to do so. See In re Devers, 317 Or. 261, 265, 855 P.2d 617 (1993) (concluding lawyer violated rule by failing to return client files when asked); In re Spies, 316 Or. 530, 534-35, 852 P.2d 831 (1993) (quoting In re Arbuckle, 308 Or. 135, 138, 775 P.2d 832 (1989) which explains that "client is entitled to the return of the client's property upon demand"). The trial panel concluded, without explanation, that the accused did not violate this rule.

  9. In re Bourcier

    322 Or. 561 (Or. 1996)   Cited 8 times
    Discussing that disciplinary rule

    In Chandler, aggravating factors were two prior disciplinary proceedings and a pattern of neglect. In In re Arbuckle, 308 Or. 135, 775 P.2d 832 (1989), this court imposed a two-year suspension on a lawyer who failed to account for the client's property and failed to acknowledge or respond to any requests or inquiries by the Bar in connection with its investigation of the client's complaint. In light of the ABA Standards, in light of this court's precedents, and having particular regard for the significance of the accused's professional misconduct and the many aggravating factors, we conclude that a three-year suspension from the practice of law is an appropriate sanction for the accused's misconduct.

  10. In re Spies

    852 P.2d 831 (Or. 1993)   Cited 14 times

    We agree with the trial panel that the accused's continued failure over a period of several years to return Cook's file violated DR 9-101(B)(4).See In re Arbuckle, 308 Or. 135, 138, 775 P.2d 832 (1989) (unless lawyer is exercising valid lien rights in client's property, client is entitled to return of property upon demand). DR 9-101 provides, in part: