Legal Opinion

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Harris

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided July 11, 2002No. OSB 99-37, 99-62 to 99-64, 99-114 to 99-117; SC S46572PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, we address the question left open in In re Devers, 328 Or 230, 233-34, 974 P2d 191 (1999), whether a lawyer has a constitutional right to appointed counsel in a disciplinary proceeding. We conclude that an accused lawyer has no such constitutional right, and, further, we decline to require the appointment of counsel under our general authority over lawyer disciplinary matters. Also, we agree with the decision of the trial panel of the Disciplinary Board to disbar the accused.

We begin with a review of the proceedings below and in this court. In eight…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Alabama v. SheltonSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  3. Brown v. Multnomah County District CourtOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Application of StevensonOregon Supreme Court · 1969
  5. In Re Complaint as to Conduct of DeversOregon Supreme Court · 1999

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of PaulsonOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State v. MacNabOregon Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State v. PierceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  4. Estate of King v. Wagoner County Board of County CommissionersCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2006
  5. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of PaulsonOregon Supreme Court · 2006

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API