0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
393 tayangan5 halaman
C. MICHAEL ARNOLD
OSB #011873
Eugene
Reprimand
On Jan. 17, 2008, the disciplinary board approved a stipulation for discipline reprimanding Eugene lawyer C. Michael Arnold for violating RPC 8.4(a)(2) (commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects).
Arnold was the prosecutor for the City of Florence at a hearing in which a minor pled guilty to driving under the influence of intoxicants and entered into a diversion agreement. Arnold subsequently contacted the minor, ostensibly for the purpose of checking up on her, and suggested that they meet. Arnold drove the minor to a restaurant and purchased two glasses of wine for her in violation of ORS 471.410(2), which prohibits anyone, other than a parent or guardian, from selling, giving or otherwise making available any alcoholic liquor to a person under the age of 21.
C. MICHAEL ARNOLD
OSB #011873
Eugene
Reprimand
On Jan. 17, 2008, the disciplinary board approved a stipulation for discipline reprimanding Eugene lawyer C. Michael Arnold for violating RPC 8.4(a)(2) (commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects).
Arnold was the prosecutor for the City of Florence at a hearing in which a minor pled guilty to driving under the influence of intoxicants and entered into a diversion agreement. Arnold subsequently contacted the minor, ostensibly for the purpose of checking up on her, and suggested that they meet. Arnold drove the minor to a restaurant and purchased two glasses of wine for her in violation of ORS 471.410(2), which prohibits anyone, other than a parent or guardian, from selling, giving or otherwise making available any alcoholic liquor to a person under the age of 21.
C. MICHAEL ARNOLD
OSB #011873
Eugene
Reprimand
On Jan. 17, 2008, the disciplinary board approved a stipulation for discipline reprimanding Eugene lawyer C. Michael Arnold for violating RPC 8.4(a)(2) (commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects).
Arnold was the prosecutor for the City of Florence at a hearing in which a minor pled guilty to driving under the influence of intoxicants and entered into a diversion agreement. Arnold subsequently contacted the minor, ostensibly for the purpose of checking up on her, and suggested that they meet. Arnold drove the minor to a restaurant and purchased two glasses of wine for her in violation of ORS 471.410(2), which prohibits anyone, other than a parent or guardian, from selling, giving or otherwise making available any alcoholic liquor to a person under the age of 21.
This matter having been heard upon the Stipulation for Discipline entered into by the Accused and the Oregon State Bar, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation between the parties is approved and the Accused is publicly reprimanded for violation of RPC 8.4(a)(2). DATED this 17th day of January 2008. /s/ Susan G. Bischoff Susan G. Bischoff, Esq. State Disciplinary Board Chairperson /s/ Gregory E. Skillman Gregory E. Skillman, Esq., Region 2 Disciplinary Board Chairperson
13
Cite as In re Arnold, 22 DB Rptr 13 (2008)
STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE C. Michael Arnold, attorney at law (hereinafter Accused), and the Oregon State Bar (hereinafter Bar) hereby stipulate to the following matters pursuant to Oregon State Bar Rule of Procedure 3.6(c). 1. The Bar was created and exists by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon and is, and at all times mentioned herein was, authorized to carry out the provisions of ORS Chapter 9, relating to the discipline of attorneys. 2. The Accused was admitted by the Oregon Supreme Court to the practice of law in Oregon on October 4, 2001, and has been a member of the Oregon State Bar continuously since that time, having his office and place of business in Lane County, Oregon. 3. The Accused enters into this Stipulation for Discipline freely and voluntarily. This Stipulation for Discipline is made under the restrictions of Bar Rule of Procedure 3.6(h). 4. On September 20, 2007, a Formal Complaint was filed against the Accused pursuant to the authorization of the State Professional Responsibility Board (hereinafter SPRB), alleging violation of RPC 8.4(a)(2). The parties intend that this Stipulation for Discipline set forth all relevant facts, violations, and the agreed-upon sanction as a final disposition of the proceeding. Facts 5. On January 23, 2007, Melanie Oakley (hereinafter Oakley) appeared at a court hearing on a charge of driving under the influence of intoxicants. The Accused, representing the City of Florence, was present at the hearing and learned that Oakley was 18 years old. Oakley pled guilty to the charge and entered into a diversion agreement. 6. Thereafter, the Accused contacted Oakley, ostensibly for the purpose of checking up on her, and suggested that they meet. On February 6, 2007, the Accused drove Oakley to a restaurant and purchased two glasses of wine for her.
14
Cite as In re Arnold, 22 DB Rptr 13 (2008)
7. ORS 471.410(2) prohibits anyone, other than a parent or guardian, from selling, giving, or otherwise making available any alcoholic liquor to a person under the age of 21. On May 25, 2007, the Accused pled guilty to violating ORS 471.410(2) as described in paragraph 6 herein. Violations 8. The Accused admits that, by engaging in the conduct described in paragraphs 5 through 7, he violated RPC 8.4(a)(2). Sanction 9. The Accused and the Bar agree that in fashioning an appropriate sanction in this case, the Disciplinary Board should consider the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter Standards). The Standards require that the Accuseds conduct be analyzed by considering the following factors: (1) the ethical duty violated, (2) the attorneys mental state, (3) the actual or potential injury, and (4) the existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. a.
Duties violated. The Accused violated a duty he owed to the public not to engage in criminal conduct. Standards, 5.0.
b.
Mental state. Intent is the conscious objective or purpose to
accomplish a particular result. Standards, p. 7. The Accused acted intentionally.
c.
Injury. Underage drinking statutes are intended to protect minors from
the consequences of alcohol consumption. Oakley sustained actual injury as a result of the Accuseds conduct. The prosecutors office also sustained actual injury in that the Accuseds criminal conduct reflected poorly on the office.
d.
Aggravating circumstances. The following aggravating circumstances
exist:
e.
1.
Vulnerability of victim. Standards, 9.22(h).
2.
Substantial experience in the practice of law. The Accused has
been a lawyer in Oregon since 2001. Standards, 9.22(i).
3.
Illegal conduct. Standards, 9.22(k).
Mitigating circumstances. The following mitigating circumstances exist:
1.
Absence of a prior disciplinary record. Standards, 9.32(a).
2.
Cooperative attitude toward the proceeding. Standards, 9.32(e).
15
Cite as In re Arnold, 22 DB Rptr 13 (2008)
3.
Character or reputation. The Accused has submitted letters from
lawyers attesting to his good character and reputation. Standards, 9.32(g).
4.
Imposition of other penalties or sanctions. The Accused pled
guilty to engaging in criminal conduct and paid a fine. Standards, 9.32(l).
5.
Remorse. The Accused has expressed remorse for his conduct.
Standards, 9.32(m). 10.
Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in
certain criminal conduct that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyers fitness to practice. Standards, 5.12. 11. The Accused was not acting as a lawyer when he engaged in the criminal conduct at issue here. Reprimands have been imposed on lawyers who have engaged in misconduct in their personal lives, even when the misconduct also constitutes a crime. In re Carpenter, 337 Or 226, 95 P3d 203 (2004) (reprimand imposed on lawyer who created an Internet bulletin board account in the name of a local high school teacher and posted a message purportedly written by the teacher which suggested that the teacher had engaged in sexual relations with students); In re Kumley, 335 Or 639, 75 P3d 432 (2003) (inactive lawyer who identified himself as an attorney in forms he filled out as a legislative candidate was reprimanded for committing crimes of knowingly making a false statement under election laws and false swearing); In re Flannery, 334 Or 224, 47 P3d 891 (2002) (reprimand imposed on deputy district attorney who committed a misdemeanor when he submitted a false application for a driver license). 12. Consistent with the Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that the Accused shall be publicly reprimanded for violation of RPC 8.4(a)(2). 13. This Stipulation for Discipline is subject to review by Disciplinary Counsel of the Oregon State Bar and to approval by the SPRB. If approved by the SPRB, the parties agree the stipulation is to be submitted to the Disciplinary Board for consideration pursuant to the terms of BR 3.6.
16
Cite as In re Arnold, 22 DB Rptr 13 (2008)
EXECUTED this 4th day of January 2008. /s/ C. Michael Arnold C. Michael Arnold OSB No. 011873 EXECUTED this 9th day of January 2008. OREGON STATE BAR By: /s/ Stacy J. Hankin Stacy J. Hankin OSB No. 862028 Assistant Disciplinary Counsel