In re Graeff, 485 P.3d 258

Respondent (Erik Graeff) fired six rounds from a pistol into the occupied law office of attorney Terrance Hogan during a professional dispute; one bullet passed about seven inches from an office manager’s head. Respondent pleaded guilty to unlawful use of a weapon (shooting at a building) and to reckless endangerment, served prison time and post-prison supervision.
In a separate malpractice representation, respondent moved to withdraw, served the withdrawal motion to an incorrect address, did not email his clients (Stull and Buchanan) his withdrawal or an opposing summary judgment motion served only on him, and did not inform them he no longer represented them until asked.
The Oregon State Bar charged violations of RPC 8.4(a)(2) (criminal conduct reflecting adversely on fitness) and RPC 1.4(a) & (b) (failure to keep clients informed and explain matters).
A Disciplinary Board trial panel found a violation of RPC 8.4(a)(2) but not RPC 1.4(a)/(b), and recommended a three-year suspension. The Bar and respondent cross-petitioned for review.
On de novo review, the Oregon Supreme Court found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent violated RPC 8.4(a)(2) and RPC 1.4(a) and (b), acknowledged mitigating factors (PTSD, alcoholism, cooperation, restitution), found significant aggravators (intentional violent act, multiple offenses, vulnerability of victim, experience, lack of full acknowledgment), and suspended respondent for five years (maximum short of disbarment).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the shooting violated RPC 8.4(a)(2)	Bar: intentional criminal act firing into occupied office reflects adversely on fitness	Graeff: did not contest criminal conviction on building charge; minimized harm	Yes — conviction and circumstances establish violation of RPC 8.4(a)(2)
Whether failure to notify clients violated RPC 1.4(a) and (b)	Bar: respondent knowingly failed to inform clients of withdrawal and an opposing summary judgment motion, prejudicing them	Graeff: panel found insufficient proof; he had earlier admitted then withdrew that admission	Yes — court found clear and convincing evidence of violations of RPC 1.4(a) and (b)
Proper sanction (disbarment vs. suspension; length)	Bar: seeks disbarment given violent criminal conduct	Graeff: requested one-year suspension; trial panel recommended three years	Suspension for five years (maximum under BR 6.1(a)(3)); disbarment not mandated by ABA Standards applied to facts
Role of mitigating factors (PTSD, alcoholism, restitution)	Bar: mitigating factors do not excuse intentional violent conduct; restitution insufficient to avoid severe sanction	Graeff: impairment and restitution significantly mitigate, argue for shorter suspension	Mitigating factors weighed but insufficient to avoid lengthy suspension; impairment did not excuse intentional planning and commission of shooting; restitution is mitigating but limited

In re Groom, 350 Or 113 (2011) (factors for determining RPC 1.4 violations and lawyer communication duties)
In re Webb, 363 Or 42 (2018) (using ABA Standards and case law to determine sanctions)
In re McGraw, 362 Or 667 (2018) (consideration of aggravating/mitigating factors in sanctions)
In re Kirchoff, 361 Or 712 (2017) (standard for clear and convincing proof in disciplinary proceedings)
In re Maurer, 364 Or 190 (2019) (failure to acknowledge wrongful conduct as an aggravating factor)
In re Murdock, 328 Or 18 (1998) (duty to public and integrity under ABA Standards)
In re Albrecht, 333 Or 520 (2002) (treatment of statutory charging alongside disciplinary rules)
In re Walton, 352 Or 548 (2012) (criminal conviction not required for disciplinary finding if record establishes misconduct)