Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed a lawyer disciplinary proceeding arising from an “intestate” probate petition that did not disclose a potentially valid will being challenged in a related case. The court held that the representation that the decedent died intestate was a plausible legal position because the will’s validity remained unresolved, and that the Oregon State Bar failed to prove the respondent knowingly violated RPC 3.3(a)(1), RPC 3.3(a)(4), or RPC 8.4(a)(4) by clear and convincing evidence. The complaint was dismissed.
Court
Supreme Court of Oregon
Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Oregon
Decision date
March 12, 2026
Docket number
S071643
Disposition
dismissed
Questions Presented
- Whether Ersoff knowingly made a false statement of fact or law in violation of RPC 3.3(a)(1) by stating that the decedent died intestate while contesting the validity of a 2017 will.
- Whether Ersoff knowingly violated RPC 3.3(a)(1) or RPC 3.3(a)(4) by failing to disclose the 2017 will and its contest in the probate case.
- Whether Ersoff's filing and omission constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of RPC 8.4(a)(4).
Holdings
- The Bar failed to prove that Ersoff knowingly made a false statement by asserting that the decedent died intestate. Because "intestate" refers to the legal status of dying without a valid will, and the validity of the 2017 will remained an open question under active litigation, the statement represented a plausible legal position rather than a knowingly false statement.
- Although Ersoff was legally obligated to disclose the existence of the 2017 will to the judge considering the probate petition, the Bar failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Ersoff knowingly failed to make that disclosure. Filing the will contest in a separate case in the same circuit court did not itself satisfy the disclosure obligation, but the evidence did not establish the required knowing mental state.
- Ersoff's failure to disclose the challenged 2017 will was improper, but the Bar failed to prove that the omission caused or could have caused substantial harm or substantial potential harm to the administration of justice. Therefore, Ersoff did not violate RPC 8.4(a)(4).
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…