In re Roller

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Professional Responsibility
  • Date Filed: 03-09-2017
  • Case #: S064359
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Per Curiam; En Banc
  • Full Text Opinion

When a lawyer fails to frame any challenge to the trial panel’s decision, he or she is not entitled to any different consideration by the court than if he or she had not sought review at all. In re Oh, 350 Or 204, 252 P3d 325 (2011).

A trial panel of the Disciplinary Board (the Board) conducted a hearing, and found that the Accused had violated 10 separate Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct (ORPC). The Board determined that the appropriate sanction was suspension of the Accused from the bar for a period of four years. On appeal, the Accused failed to file an opening brief. The Board pursuant to ORAP 11.25(3), elected "to submit a letter requesting submission of the case to the court without briefing or oral argument.” When a lawyer fails to frame any challenge to the trial panel’s decision, he or she is not entitled to any different consideration by the court than if he or she had not sought review at all. In re Oh, 350 Or 204, 252 P3d 325 (2011). Although, under ORS 9.536(2) and BR 10.6, these decisions are normally reviewed de novo, in “the absence of briefing or argumentation challenging the order on review,” the Court is “free to circumscribe the extent of its review.” In re Hartfield, 349 Or 108, 112, 239 P3d 992 (2010). In this case, neither party challenged any aspect of to the trial panel’s decision. The Supreme Court exercised its discretion, following Hartfield, and reviewed the Board’s decision without briefs or argument. The Court held, following Oh and Hartfield, that it had no basis for disagreeing with the trial panel’s decision in this case. Affirmed.

  

Advanced Search