In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Renshaw
2013 Ore. LEXIS 185
Or.2013Background
- Accused admitted misappropriating approximately $100,000 of firm funds for personal expenses over several years.
- Firm treated funds as business assets; expenses were miscoded to hide personal use.
- Discrepancies discovered by the firm’s bookkeeper and accountant; accused engendered false explanations to partners.
- Accused resigned after discovery; investigations continued, with estimated misappropriation at least $150,000.
- Bar charged violations of RPC 8.4(a)(2) (theft by deception) and RPC 8.4(a)(3) (dishonesty/misrepresentation); trial panel suspended him, but de novo review imposed disbarment.
- Court disbarred accused effective 60 days from decision; held conduct was serious theft by deception and seriously reflected on fitness to practice law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misappropriation constitutes theft by deception | Bar: yes, theft by deception under ORS 164.085 | Renshaw: argues not theft; disputed 8.4(a)(2) | Yes; conduct constituted theft by deception under ORS 164.085 |
| Whether RPC 8.4(a)(2) and (a)(3) were violated | Bar: violations proven | Renshaw: admits (a)(3) but disputes (a)(2) | Violations established for both RPC 8.4(a)(2) and (a)(3) |
| What sanction is appropriate given aggravating/mitigating factors | Disbarment warranted per ABA Standards | Trial panel’s one-year suspension with conditions; request for lesser sanction | Disbarment warranted; aggravating factors outweigh mitigators |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Murdock, 328 Or 18 (Or. 1998) (disbarment warranted for long-running embezzlement from firm)
- In re Pennington, 220 Or 343 (Or. 1960) (long pattern of taking funds from partners supports severe sanction)
- In re Leisure, 338 Or 508 (Or. 2005) (distinction between theft and negotiating bad checks; disbarment for serious misconduct)
- In re Carstens, 297 Or 155 (Or. 1984) (forgery and related misconduct; distinctions used to assess sanctions)
- In re Goff, 352 Or 104 (Or. 2012) (identifies rule violations but not the underlying facts; limited precedential value)