Legal Opinion

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Flannery

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 7, 2002No. OSB 00-98; SC S48338PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

In this lawyer disciplinary 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 “a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law”); and DR 1-102(A)(3). (prohibiting lawyer from engaging “in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”). The Bar also alleged that the accused is subject to discipline under ORS 9.527(2) for having been convicted of a crime involving…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of CarstensOregon Supreme Court · 1984
  2. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of GustafsonOregon Supreme Court · 2002
  3. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of WyllieOregon Supreme Court · 1998
  4. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of HoppOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  5. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of HouchinOregon Supreme Court · 1981

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of DavenportOregon Supreme Court · 2002
  2. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of SpencerOregon Supreme Court · 2002
  3. In Re CarpenterOregon Supreme Court · 2004
  4. In Re the Reciprocal Discipline of WaltonOregon Supreme Court · 2012
  5. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of KumleyOregon Supreme Court · 2003

4 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