Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed a supplemental judgment awarding $1,289.50 in costs and disbursements to the Oregon State Bar in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding. The court held that the accused's settlement offer, made after the disciplinary hearing rather than at least 14 days beforehand, did not trigger the cost-shifting protection of Bar Rule 10.7(c).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Clark's late settlement offer qualified under BR 10.7(c) to preclude the Oregon State Bar from recovering costs and disbursements when the sanction imposed was no greater than the sanction he offered to accept.
- Whether BR 11.1 excused Clark's failure to comply with BR 10.7(c)'s requirement that a settlement offer be made at least 14 days before the hearing.
- Whether the Bar was entitled to recover reasonable costs and disbursements as the prevailing party after proving two of the three disciplinary charges.
Holdings
- A settlement offer made after the disciplinary hearing had concluded did not satisfy BR 10.7(c)'s requirement that the offer be served at least 14 days before the hearing; therefore, the Bar was entitled to reject the offer without losing the right to recover costs.
- BR 11.1 did not excuse Clark's failure to comply with BR 10.7(c) because BR 11.1 applies only when noncompliance could be grounds for dismissing a charge or objection, and a settlement offer is neither.
- The Oregon State Bar was entitled to recover its reasonable costs and disbursements because it was the prevailing party after proving two of the three disciplinary charges and because no valid BR 10.7(c) offer barred recovery.
Key quotations
“By its terms, BR 11.1 applies only where a lack of timeliness could be grounds for dismissing a "charge or objection."” (at 109)
“Given the admitted lateness of the accused's offer, the Bar was entitled to reject that offer without incurring the consequences anticipated by BR 10.7(c).” (at 109)
Factual background
The Oregon State Bar charged Clark with three violations arising from his representation of a criminal client, including mishandling client funds, a conflict of interest, and misuse of former-client information. After the hearing had concluded and the record was closed, Clark offered to admit or plead no contest to the charges in exchange for a maximum public reprimand, but the Bar rejected the offer. The trial panel proved two charges and imposed a public reprimand, after which the Bar sought and obtained $1,289.50 in costs and disbursements.
Procedural history
A disciplinary trial panel found that the Bar proved two of three charged violations and imposed a public reprimand. Neither party sought review, and the disciplinary decision became final. The Disciplinary Board state chairperson later awarded the Bar $1,289.50 in costs and disbursements. Clark objected and sought review in the Oregon Supreme Court, which affirmed the supplemental judgment on the merits without reaching the timeliness issue.