BAR ACTIONS Discipline Note: Nearly 14,900 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. JASON M. GORE OSB #052670 Tualatin Form B resignation By order dated Mar. 24, 2016, the court accepted the Form B resignation of Jason M. Gore. At the time Gore tendered his resigna- tion, the bar was investigating allegations that he misrepresented information on multiple expense reimbursement requests submitted to his former law firm. These allegations implicated possible violations of RPC 1.5(a) (charging or collecting a clearly excessive amount for costs) and RPC 8.4(a)(3) (conduct involving dis- honesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresenta- tion). MARY E. LANDERS OSB #011519 Springfield Disbarment Effective April 4, 2016, the disciplin- ary board disbarred Springfield attorney Mary Landers for violations of several disciplinary rules in two separate mat- ters, including: RPC 1.3 (neglect); RPC 1.4(a) (failure to keep a client reasonably informed and promptly respond to client inquiries); RPC 1.5(a) (clearly excessive fee); RPC 1.15-1(a) (failure to hold cli- ent funds separate from a lawyer’s own property); RPC 1.15-1(d) (failure to ac- count for or return client property); and RPC 8.4(a)(3) (dishonest conduct). Landers also failed to respond to the bar in the two cases at issue, in violation of RPC 8.1(a)(2). Landers’ violations arose in connec- tion with her representation of clients 44 OREGON STATE BAR BULLETIN • JUNE 2016 in domestic relations matters. In the first matter, following conclusion of the case, the client had funds remaining in Land- ers’ trust account. The client anticipated future legal action, and Landers told the client she could continue contributing funds to the retainer in order to keep Landers available to provide future legal services. The client did so. Approximate- ly four years later, when no future legal action occurred, the client attempted to contact Landers to obtain a refund, only to find that Landers had closed her prac- tice and taken the funds. In the second matter, Landers was retained to represent a client in a child custody case. The client later fired Land- ers when she stopped responding to his inquiries for updates. Thereafter, the cli- ent discovered that Landers had failed to respond to a motion, did not inform the client about an upcoming hearing and did not notify the court of the change in representation. Landers did not provide an accounting or a refund, even after re- quests to do so by the bar. The trial panel found that Landers’ ac- tions were greatly aggravated by her prior similar misconduct, as well as numerous additional aggravating factors, with no corresponding mitigating factors. LYNN EARL SMITH OSB #901216 Lake Oswego Public reprimand By order dated Apr. 10, 2016, the disciplinary board approved a stipulation for discipline whereby Lynn Earl Smith was publicly reprimanded for violation of RPC 1.5(a) (charging or collecting a clearly excessive fee). Smith represented a husband and wife on personal injury claims arising from a motor vehicle accident. Both clients signed fee agreements providing for a one-third contingency fee on all amounts “successfully negotiated” by Smith, in- cluding medical and PIP payments. Wife’s PIP carrier did not contest her wage-loss claim and sent Smith a check representing two weeks of her lost wages. Smith collected 33 percent of this amount for his fee. Smith did not collect any por- tion on a subsequent wage-loss payment, but his overall fee amounted to 17 percent of wife’s wage-loss benefits. Wife termi- nated representation before Smith made demand for the contested portion of her personal injury claim. Smith obtained a settlement of hus- band’s claims: $5,479 in uncontested PIP benefits paid directly to husband’s medi- cal providers and $5,500 in personal in- jury damages. Smith initially charged 33 percent of the full amount for his fee, but after husband objected to paying a fee on the PIP benefits, Smith promptly retract- ed that portion of his fee. Smith and the bar stipulated that, by attempting to collect a one-third con- tingency on husband’s uncontested PIP benefits and collecting a 17 percent fee on wife’s uncontested wage-loss benefits, Smith violated RPC 1.5(a). JOHN P. ECKREM OSB #962708 Medford Form B resignation By order dated April 21, 2016, the court accepted the Form B resignation of John P. Eckrem. At the time Eckrem tendered his res- ignation, three disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. In each of the proceedings, Eckrem was charged with ac- cepting advance fees from clients when he was not eligible to practice law and there- after taking no action on the matters, failing to communicate with his clients, failing to refund unearned fees upon ter- mination of representation, and failing to inform clients that he was suspended (or had become suspended after they hired him). Eckrem was charged in each case with violating RPC 1.3, RPC 1.4(a), RPC 1.4(b), RPC 1.5(a), RPC 1.16(d), RPC 5.5(a), RPC 8.4(a)(3) and ORS 9.160. In two matters, he was also charged with fail-