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. STEVEN FISHER OSB #063260 Meridian, Idaho 30-day suspension Effective Aug. 29, 2016, the disciplin- ary board approved a stipulation for dis- cipline suspending Ada County, Idaho, attorney Steven Fisher for 30 days for vio- lations of RPC 1.5(a) (excessive fee), RPC 1.7(a)(2) (personal interest conflict) and RPC 1.8(h)(2) (settling a potential mal- practice claim with an unrepresented cli- ent). Fisher’s misconduct arose in his repre- sentation of a client pursuant to a written contingency arrangement that discussed an alternative hourly fee but did not define terms essential to the client’s understand- ing of that fee or identify what hourly rates would apply using such a calculation. Later communications from Fisher suggested that the contingency percentage (not the alternative hourly fee) would be utilized. At the time the case settled, Fisher knew that his client was not satisfied with his representation and unhappy with the amount of the settlement. When Fisher received the settlement, he removed at- torney fees and costs calculated using the alternative hourly fee. Fisher sent the remainder —much less than the 60 per- cent the client was expecting — to the client with a release that conditioned the client’s acceptance of the funds (his own funds) on his concession that he was “satisfied” with the both the settlement and Fisher’s legal representation. This use of funds that undisputedly belonged to the client as consideration to settle any prospective malpractice claim, created a personal-interest conflict. Fisher failed to 42 OREGON STATE BAR BULLETIN • OCTOBER 2016 advise his unrepresented client in writing of the desirability of seeking the advice of independent counsel and other essential terms, nor did he obtain signed written consent from his client. Fisher’s misconduct was aggravated by his selfish motive and substantial experi- ence in the practice of law. Mitigating factors included Fisher’s absence of a prior disciplinary record, cooperation with the bar, and remorse, including his agreement to pay restitution to his client. RONALD M. HELLEWELL OSB #832310 Salem 30-day suspension, all stayed; 18-month probation Effective Sep. 2, 2016, the disciplin- ary board approved a stipulation for disci- pline suspending Salem attorney Ronald M. Hellewell for 30 days for violations of the following: RPC 1.3 (neglect); RPC 1.4(a) (failure to keep a client reasonably informed); RPC 1.4(b) (failure to explain matters sufficient to allow a client to make informed decisions); RPC 1.15-1(a) (fail- ure to safeguard client funds); and RPC 1.15-1(c) (failure to deposit and main- tain client funds in trust). However, all of Hellewell’s suspension is to be stayed, pending his successful completion of an 18-month probation focusing on practice management, case management and the proper handling of client funds and trust accounts. Hellewell’s conduct arose in his rep- resentation of two clients in unrelated matters. In one, Hellewell was retained to expunge or seek relief of his client’s sex offender reporting requirement. In March and April 2013, the client paid Hellewell for the filing fee and legal services. Over the 16 months, apart from drafting a peti- tion, Hellewell failed to file the necessary pleadings or provide any substantive legal services. In August 2014, Hellewell filed a petition that was denied a month later. Hellewell then failed to inform his client of the denial for several weeks. In the second matter, Hellewell was retained to initiate and complete a dis- solution and was paid $2,000 by his cli- ent toward attorney’s fees and anticipated expenses. There was no written fee agree- ment allowing Hellewell to treat the funds as earned upon receipt, but he did not deposit the payment into his trust ac- count or ensure that the credit card pro- ceeds were timely transferred there. The stipulation recited that Hellewell’s misconduct was aggravated by a prior re- cord of discipline, multiple offenses, and his substantial experience in the prac- tice of law. Mitigating factors included Hellewell’s absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, timely good faith efforts to make restitution, cooperation with the bar, proof of good character and reputation, remorse and the remoteness of prior offenses. ROBERT S. SIMON OSB #901209 Santa Monica, Calif. 185-day suspension Effective Sept. 24, 2016, the disciplin- ary board suspended former Portland at- torney Robert S. Simon for 185 days for violations of the following: RPC 1.5(a) (excessive fee); RPC 1.9(a) (former-cli- ent conflict of interest); and RPC 8.4(a) (3) (dishonest conduct), in connection with business workouts and restructurings for companies and entities owned and/or managed by two brothers who became es- tranged during the course of Simon’s rep- resentation. The trial panel found that Simon vio- lated RPC 1.9(a) when he represented a trust entity, through its trustee (Brother 1), in civil litigation. Thereafter, Simon represented a number of creditors (in- cluding Brother 2) in an involuntary bankruptcy petition filed against the trust entity. The litigation and the involuntary bankruptcy litigation were substantially related because they both involved a dis- pute over whether title to real property belonging to the trust would stay in the trust, or it would be taken out and fore-