In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Murphy
245 P.3d 100
| Or. | 2010Background
- Murphy faced seven RPC violations in three matters (Perry, Newman, Hubler) in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding.
- Trial panel found violations: RPC 1.3 and 1.4(a) in Perry; RPC 8.1(a)(2) in all three matters.
- Panel imposed a 120-day suspension from the practice of law.
- Murphy timely sought Supreme Court review but did not file an opening brief; Bar asked to submit on the record without briefing.
- Court applied Hartfield de novo review with limited argument due to absence of briefing and affirmed the trial panel’s order.
- Suspension begins 60 days from the filing of the Supreme Court decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Murphy violated RPC 1.3 and 1.4(a) in Perry | Bar established neglect and failure to communicate | Murphy disputes or challenges the findings (not expressly stated) | Yes, violations found |
| Whether Murphy violated RPC 8.1(a)(2) in all three matters | Bar proved communications with Bar deficient in all matters | Murphy contested the Bar’s allegations (not explicitly stated) | Yes, violations found in each matter |
| Whether the 120-day suspension is an appropriate sanction | Bar argued suspension warranted given violations | Murphy did not present persuasive contrary argument (not specified) | Yes, suspension appropriate and adopted |
| Impact of failure to file opening brief on appellate review | Hartfield applies; standard of review de novo but limited | Not specified in text | Order affirmed under Hartfield framework |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hartfield, 349 Or. 108, 239 P.3d 992 (2010) (de novo review with limited scope when no opening brief)
- In re Paulson, 346 Or. 676, 216 P.3d 859 (2009) (review framework for unfocused claims of trial-panel error)