In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Paulson
Oregon Supreme Court
1Per curiam
In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, the Oregon State Bar (Bar) alleged that the accused had violated Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule (DR) 2-106(A) by billing a client for time spent responding to the client’s complaint to the Bar against the accused. A trial panel of the Disciplinary Board concluded that the accused had violated DR 2-106(A) and imposed a public reprimand. The accused sought review of the trial panel’s decision. We review de novo. ORS 9.536(3); Bar Rule of Procedure (BR) 10.6. We also conclude that the accused violated DR 2-106(A) and impose a public…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Citizens & Southern National Bank v. Feimster (In Re Feimster)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · 1979
- Schroeder v. SchaeferOregon Supreme Court · 1970
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of StaufferOregon Supreme Court · 1998
- Schroeder v. SchaeferOregon Supreme Court · 1971
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of MillerOregon Supreme Court · 1987
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Kenneth F. DolezalSupreme Court of Iowa · 2013
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of PaulsonOregon Supreme Court · 2009
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of SkagenOregon Supreme Court · 2006
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of ObertOregon Supreme Court · 2012
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of KnappenbergerOregon Supreme Court · 2008
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.