In re Jagger

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Professional Responsibility
  • Date Filed: 05-14-2015
  • Case #: S061978
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Per Curiam; En Banc.
  • Full Text Opinion

Attorney’s violation of RPC 1.1 and RPC 1.2(c), by knowingly facilitating a client in violating a restraining order, resulted in 90-day suspension from the practice of law.

Review of disciplinary trial panel decision for violation of Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.1, failure to provide competent representation, and RPC 1.2(c), knowingly advising or assisting client to engage in illegal or fraudulent behavior. The trial panel found Jagger in violation of both above rules, and sanctioned Jagger with a 90-day suspension from practicing law. On review, the Bar asked the Court to also find that Jagger also violated RPC 8.1(a)(2), knowing failure to respond to lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, and RPC 1.15-1(d), failure to return client property, while representing another client. The Court found by clear and convincing evidence that Jagger violated RPC 1.1 by advising his client in a way that was not “the product of legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for representation.” The Court also found by clear and convincing evidence that Jagger violated RPC 1.2(c) by setting up a phone call between his client and another party, with knowledge that the contact was in violation of a restraining order. Jagger argued that the restraining order could only be violated by an action by the client. The Court held that Jagger was an agent of his client and his actions could also violate the restraining order. The Court did not find that Jagger had violated RCP RPC 8.1(a)(2) or RPC 1.15-1(d) because further discussion of the facts would not be beneficial. Affirmed.

Advanced Search