In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Roller
361 Or. 234
| Or. | 2017Background
- The Oregon State Bar filed disciplinary charges against attorney Dale Maximiliano Roller based on his representation of three clients (Games; Henson & Silajdzic; Kendell).
- Alleged violations included excessive/unwritten fees and conversion in the Games matter; neglect, poor communication, and failure to return client funds in the Henson/Silajdzic matter; and failure to appear and related communication failures in the Kendell matter.
- A Disciplinary Board trial panel held a May 2016 hearing and found by clear and convincing evidence that Roller violated multiple Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) — except it did not find violations for RPC 1.5(a) and 1.5(c)(3) in the Games matter.
- The trial panel imposed a four-year suspension from the practice of law.
- Roller timely sought review by the Oregon Supreme Court but failed to file the required opening brief; the Bar requested submission on the record without briefing or argument.
- Applying precedents that allow curtailed review when no brief is filed, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial panel and ordered a four-year suspension effective 60 days after the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roller charged an excessive/nonrefundable fee and failed to put it in writing (Games) | Bar: Fee was excessive and fee agreement lacked required disclosures/signature | Roller contested fee claims at trial but did not challenge panel on review (no opening brief) | Trial panel did not find violations of RPC 1.5(a) or 1.5(c)(3); Supreme Court affirmed (no successful challenge) |
| Whether Roller converted third-party funds and failed to notify/deliver funds (Games) | Bar: Converted funds and failed to notify/turn over client funds | Roller disputed facts at hearing but raised no briefing challenge on review | Trial panel found violations of RPC 1.15-1(d) and RPC 8.4(a)(3); Supreme Court affirmed |
| Whether Roller neglected matters, failed to communicate, and failed to protect client interests on termination (Henson & Silajdzic) | Bar: Failed to act for ~3 years, failed to respond to status inquiries, and failed to return funds after termination | Roller disputed at trial but offered no appellate briefing | Trial panel found violations of RPC 1.3, RPC 1.4(a), and RPC 1.16(d); Supreme Court affirmed |
| Whether Roller failed to appear and committed conduct prejudicial to administration of justice (Kendell) | Bar: Failed to appear at bench trial and subsequent hearings and failed to communicate with client/court | Roller contested facts at trial but did not challenge panel on review | Trial panel found violations of RPC 1.3, RPC 1.4(a), and RPC 8.4(a)(4); Supreme Court affirmed |
| Effect of failing to file opening brief on scope of appellate review | Bar: Court may accept submission on record and limit review; affirm where no party challenges panel | Roller: failed to file opening brief; thus no arguments presented to court | Under Hartfield and Oh, court may circumscribe review and ordinarily will affirm; court affirmed panel and sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hartfield, 349 Or 108 (2010) (absence of appellant briefing permits the court to limit de novo review and often to affirm the trial panel)
- In re Oh, 350 Or 204 (2011) (court follows Hartfield: where no party challenges a disciplinary panel’s order, the court ordinarily affirms)