Legal Opinion

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Kimmell

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided August 30, 2001No. OSB 98-82; SC S47464PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Per curiam

In this lawyer discipline proceeding, the Oregon State Bar (Bar) charged the accused with violating two disciplinary rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Disciplinary Rule (DR) 1-102(A)(2) (prohibiting commission of “criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law”); and DR 1-102(A)(3) (prohibiting “engaging] in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”). The Bar also alleged that the accused violated ORS 9.527(1) (conduct justifying denial of Bar admission). A trial panel of the Disciplinary Board…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. In Re JonesOregon Supreme Court · 1997
  2. In Re Complaint of PiersonOregon Supreme Court · 1977
  3. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of PhelpsOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  4. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of CarstensOregon Supreme Court · 1984
  5. In Re Complaint as to Conduct of MurdockOregon Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of EadieOregon Supreme Court · 2001
  2. ESLAMIZARBoard of Immigration Appeals · 2004
  3. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of PaulsonOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  4. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of DavenportOregon Supreme Court · 2002
  5. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of GustafsonOregon Supreme Court · 2002

22 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