To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 11.1.0 or greater is installed.

BAR ACTIONS Discipline Note: More than 15,000 persons are eligible to practice law in Oregon. Some of them share the same name or similar names. All discipline reports should be read carefully for names, addresses and bar numbers. KIRK TIBBETTS OSB #914485 Albany 30-month suspension On Dec. 18, 2015, a trial panel found that Kirk Tibbetts had violated the fol- lowing: RPC 1.16(d) (failing to provide client file on termination of representa- tion); RPC 8.1(a)(2) (failure to respond to lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority); and RPC 8.4(a) (3) (criminal conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law) and imposed a 30-month suspension. Tibbetts failed to respond to multiple requests from several clients for copies of their respective files. The clients reported Tibbetts’s failure to respond to the OSB Client Assistance Office, but neither the CAO nor disciplinary counsel’s office ever received a response from Tibbetts re- garding these matters. Tibbetts also failed to file state or fed- eral tax returns between 2007 and 2010, even though he had income that he was re- quired to report. Nevertheless, he reported to the other members of the Linn County Legal Defense Consortium that he was compliant with Oregon tax laws. Tibbetts knew he was not compliant at the time he made the above representations to the Linn County Legal Defense Consortium. Although properly served, Tibbetts did not appear to defend the charges in this matter. RICHARD P. SCHULZE III OSB #944336 Reno, Nev. 1-year suspension By order dated May 26, 2016, the court 42 OREGON STATE BAR BULLETIN • AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2016 suspended attorney Richard P. Schulze III for one year in a reciprocal discipline matter that arose from discipline imposed by the Nevada Supreme Court (one-year suspension). Schulze represented the guardian (Bayler) of a mentally disabled adult (Pre- ece). In 2007, a Nevada court appointed Schulze trustee of a special needs trust for Preece and ordered him to develop a bud- get and file annual accountings. Schulze did not file any accounting until January 2012. In 2009, the guardian moved to Wyo- ming with Preece, and Schulze sold their residence, an asset of the special needs trust. Schulze did not notify the court of Preece’s relocation or seek court approval of the sale. From the special needs trust, Schulze reimbursed the guardian’s mov- ing costs, covered the rent on a home she shared with Preece and paid her a $3,000 monthly caretaking fee. After Pre- ece was moved to a group home, Schulze continued to pay the guardian’s rent and monthly fee, in addition to Preece’s living expenses. When Schulze made his first report and accounting to the court in January 2012, he represented that Bayler had terminat- ed his representation in 2009. However, Schulze also requested substantial legal fees for work after the purported termina- tion. The trial court found that Schulze’s failure to file annual accountings had led to massive waste of trust funds and that he had attempted to blame his client for this failure. The trial court removed Bay- ler as guardian and Schulze as trustee and found them both in contempt. The court ordered Schulze to repay funds expended by the special needs trust. By the time of his Nevada disciplinary hearing, Schulze had repaid over $26,000. In reciprocal discipline proceedings, the court analyzes an attorney’s conduct under Oregon’s rules and statutes. The bar submitted that Schulze’s conduct violated RPC 1.7(a)(1) and (2) (current client conflict of interest, attorney self-interest); RPC 3.3 (lack of candor toward a tribu- nal); RPC 8.4(a)(3) (conducting involv- ing dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepre- sentation); and RPC 8.4(a)(4) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of jus- tice). In imposing a one-year sentence, the court accepted the bar’s recommendation. DAVID BRIAN WILLIAMSON OSB #763827 St. Helens Form B resignation Effective May 26, 2016, the Oregon Supreme Court accepted the Form B res- ignation of former St. Helens attorney David Brian Williamson. The court also granted Williamson’s motion to withdraw the pending appeal of his disbarment by the disciplinary board (Case No. 13-36). In Case No. 13-36, the disciplinary board found that Williamson violated the following: RPC 1.7(a)(2) (personal and current-client conflicts of interest); RPC 1.15-1(a) (failure to safeguard third-party property); RPC 1.15-1(c) (failure to de- posit and maintain client funds in trust); RPC 1.15-1(d) (failure to promptly no- tify interested person of receipt of funds); RPC 1.15-1(e) (failure to maintain and keep separate disputed property); RPC 5.3(a) (failure to adequately supervise non-lawyer staff); and RPC 8.4(a)(3) (dishonest conduct). The violations arose in connection with the repeated theft of client funds from Williamson’s lawyer trust account by a legal secretary, and Williamson’s later mishandling of funds he recovered as restitution from the for- mer secretary. At the time of his resignation, an ad- ditional formal disciplinary proceeding (Case No. 16-20) had been authorized, alleging that Williamson engaged in mis- conduct in representing his cousins in the probate of his late uncle, including ac- cepting fees without court approval and failing to respond to numerous court re- quests and show cause orders. That formal proceeding alleged violations of: RPC 1.1 (incompetence); RPC 1.2(c) (counsel or assist a client in illegal or fraudulent con-