In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Groom, 249 P.3d 976

Bar charged Groom with violating RPC 1.4 for failing to keep Evett reasonably informed and to explain matters to enable informed decisions.
Evett, imprisoned for federal crimes, pursued a habeas petition challenging imprisonment at SRCI; State later dismissed the habeas petition as moot.
Groom was appointed to represent Evett in the habeas appeal on October 17, 2005; Evett also pursued a parallel civil rights action represented by Simmons.
Simmons suspected that vacatur of the habeas judgment could affect the civil action; he advised Groom to consider vacatur after mootness was determined.
State filed a motion to dismiss the habeas appeal as moot on May 26, 2007; Groom did not respond before the deadline and did not inform Simmons of his decision.
Groom ultimately informed Simmons and Evett on August 2, 2007 that he would not file a motion to vacate because he believed it lacked merit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Groom violate RPC 1.4 by not keeping Evett reasonably informed about his decision?	Bar argues Groom failed to communicate his decision to Evett/Simmons timely.	Groom owed no duty to Evett in the civil matter and acted after reviewing merits; delay did not breach RPC 1.4.	Not proved by clear and convincing evidence.
Whether Groom's delay and communication practices were unreasonable under RPC 1.4 factorsss?	Bar contends delay and lack of timely info prejudiced Evett.	Delay was not unreasonable; communications generally prompt; no prejudice shown.	Not proven; Bar failed to show reasonable inform/prejudice.

In re Snyder, 348 Or. 307 (2010) (factors for RPC 1.4 violation include prolonged noncommunication and delay)
In re Koch, 345 Or. 444 (2008) (prompt response to reasonable requests; neglectful delay violates RPC 1.4)
In re Coyner, 342 Or. 104 (2006) (duty to communicate; neglectful failure to update client about appeal)
In re Bourcier, 325 Or. 429 (1997) (failure to communicate with client regarding appeal and status)
In re Geurts, 290 Or. 241 (1980) (merely meritorious lack does not excuse duty to communicate)