Oregon State Bar Bulletin — JUNE 2014



Bar Actions - Discipline



Note: More than 14,700 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.

MARC T. ANDERSEN
OSB #950516
Bend
6-month, 1-day suspension

Pursuant to a stipulation for discipline, effective April 17, 2014, the Oregon Supreme Court suspended Bend attorney Marc Andersen for six months and one day, for a number of disciplinary rule violations including: failure to cooperate (RPC 8.1(a)(2)); neglect (RPC 1.3); failure to communicate (RPC 1.4(a)); failure to withdraw when a mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent a client (RPC 1.16(a)(2)); and failure to properly withdraw (RPC 1.16(d)).The violations related to Andersen’s representation of two clients in an employment contract dispute.

The stipulation recited that Andersen failed to attend to client matters and failed to adequately communicate with clients, failed to attend his clients’ arbitration scheduling hearing and subsequently failed to respond to the bar.

Although there were multiple offenses and a pattern of misconduct, Andersen’s sanction was mitigated by his lack of prior discipline in addition to his remorse.

 

PETER M. SCHANNAUER
OSB #961770
Bend
Disbarred

Effective May 13, 2014, the disciplinary board disbarred Bend attorney Peter Schannauer for violations of several disciplinary rules, including: RPC 1.1 (lack of competence); RPC 1.3 (neglect); RPC 1.4 (failure to adequately communicate); and RPC 1.15(d) (failure to account for or return client funds). Schannauer also failed to respond to the bar in the two cases at issue (RPC 8.1(a)(2)).

Schannauer’s violations arose in connection with his representation of clients in domestic relations matters. The trial panel found that his actions were greatly aggravated by his prior similar misconduct. Schannauer had been a lawyer in Oregon since 1996.

 

KEVIN J. KINNEY
OSB #953237
Newberg
1-year suspension, all but 60 days stayed, 1-year probation

Effective June 1, 2014, the Oregon Supreme Court approved a stipulation for discipline suspending Newberg attorney Kevin Kinney for one year, all but 60 days stayed, pending a one-year probation for violations of RPC 8.4(a)(3) (conduct involving misrepresentation) and RPC 8.4(a)(4) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

The violations arose in connection with inaccuracies contained in Kinney’s personal bankruptcy petition and subsequent testimony regarding that petition. The stipulation recited that Kinney’s conduct was aggravated by factors including his substantial experience in the practice of law, and somewhat by his prior discipline. Mitigation included personal problems, cooperation with the bar’s investigation and remorse.

 

THEODORE M. ROE
OSB #991004
Portland
2-year suspension, all but 6 months stayed, plus probation

Effective June 7, 2014, the Oregon Supreme Court approved a stipulation for discipline suspending Portland lawyer Theodore Roe for two years, with all but six months stayed, pending two years of probation, for violating the following: RPC 1.5(a) (excessive fee); RPC 3.1 (unmeritorious claim or defense); RPC 3.3(a) (candor toward a tribunal); RPC 3.3(d) (failure to disclose necessary information in an ex parte proceeding); RPC 8.4(a)(3) (conduct involving misrepresentation); and RPC 8.4(a)(4) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).

After representing a husband seeking to avoid foreclosure of his and his wife’s home in 2005, Roe sued his client and the client’s wife for attorneys’ fees in Multnomah County. An arbitrator’s award on Roe’s fee claim against the client (only) was not appealed and became a final judgment.

Roe in 2007 then sued the client, his wife, and their adult daughter in Yamhill County, alleging that they had fraudulently transferred the property Roe had been hired to save from foreclosure for the purpose of avoiding his Multnomah County judgment. Roe took a default judgment against all three of them. Later, Roe filed a Rule 68 petition for attorney’s fees and enhanced prevailing party fees that was unopposed. A supplemental judgment was entered against all three defendants.

Roe obtained a writ of execution and a sheriff’s sale was scheduled when the client retained counsel. The new lawyer was able to have both Yamhill County judgments set aside as being based on objectively unreasonable claims, and obtained an order that required Roe to pay the client’s attorneys fees and costs for setting the judgments aside. Thereafter, the parties negotiated a settlement in which Roe set aside all judgments (including the Multnomah County judgment) and paid the client the amount the court awarded less the amount the client owed Roe for underlying fees.

Roe obtained a writ of execution and a sheriff’s sale was scheduled when the client retained counsel. After new counsel moved to set aside the Yamhill action, Roe voluntarily set aside both Yamhill County judgments but opposed client’s motion for attorney fees. After the court determined that that Roe’s actions lacked any reasonable basis, new counsel obtained an order requiring Roe to pay the client’s attorney fees and costs for seeking an attorney fee award. Thereafter, the parties negotiated a settlement in which Roe set aside the Multnomah County judgment and paid the client the amount the court awarded less the amount the client owed Roe for underlying fees.

Although the stipulation recited that Roe acted selfishly, his conduct was mitigated by factors including the absence of prior discipline and cooperation with the disciplinary proceedings.

 




return to top
return to Table of Contents