Jay Jackson's Legal History

If you'll remember, in this post I noted that Jackson has two disciplinary actions against him from the late 1990s by the Oregon State Bar Association.

I had assumed the content of those complaints was confidential.

I was wrong - some enterprising soul sent me the links as to where they can be found online.

Warning: The links are to a larger document, the Disciplinary Board Reporter, which appears to be a summary of all discipline actions for the year involving Oregon attorneys.

You will have to look for the specific item pertaining to Jackson; I suggest looking on pages 201-203 as well as 223-224 in the 1996 report and pages 164 and 182 in the 1999 report.

Here is a link to the 1996 report.

Here is a link to the 1999 report.

Both are PDFs. The items themselves are a few pages long; I'm not going to print them all out here, but below are some short excerpts from the 1999 item.

[Note: the text copied over that way; I will change it later if I have time.]

Findings of Fact and Conclusions

...

On March 4, 1997, Dyer, through his wife, delivered to the Accused a written
request for an accounting of the $1,000 retainer and another request for return of his
documents. The Dyers notified the Accused that they would come to his office the
following Thursday to pick up the documents. The letter states:

“Jay, these are the items we still need.
1. German documents for both boys (2 papers)
2. Letter from U.S. Army
3. Copy of tapes from deposition (Approx. 6)
4. Copy of German papers read at deposition that were not in your file.
(Not sure which exhibit #’s, possible 2 or 3 of them)
5. Month by month statement billing for $1,000 retainer.
One of us will be in Thursday to pick them up. Bill & Sharon Dyer 3/4/97”

The Accused acknowledges receipt of the letter. He states that he did not read
the Dyers’ letter to suggest that they had needed the items and still needed them, or
place any significance in the phrase “we still need.” The Accused states that in
response to the letter, he asked a receptionist to copy the file and deliver it to the Dyers when they returned. The receptionist originally, when interviewed by the Bar, did not recall copying the file. However, later at the hearing she did recall copying the file. However, she did not recall giving a copy of the file to Dyer in response to the March letter. Regardless of whether or not the receptionist did or did not copy the file, the Accused did not provide a copy of the file. Mrs. Dyer arrived at the Accused’s office as scheduled, but did not receive the documents or a statement accounting for the retainer. Additionally, in the months that followed, the Accused did not at any time send the documents or a statement accounting for the retainer to the Dyers.

On July 10, 1997, Dyer sent the Accused another letter. In that letter, Dyer
again requested that the original documents be returned. Further, he requested a copy
of the Uniform Support Affidavit of Respondent, final paperwork of their case after
it was signed by the judge, and tapes of the depositions. The Accused acknowledged
receiving that letter and further acknowledged that he did not provide the client any
of the items requested. The Accused states that he did not return the client’s property at that time because he believed that the client’s property had previously been returned. Having heard all the evidence on this issue, the Trial Panel finds that the Accused never did return to the client the documents or pay stubs that Dyer gave to the Accused in early August 1996. The Accused failed to promptly deliver to his client the client’s property in his possession. On December 12, 1997, the Dyers filed a complaint with the Bar concerning the Accused’s conduct. The Bar then forwarded a copy of the complaint to the Accused.

The Accused then sent a response to the Bar’s inquiry by letter. With his
response, the Accused provided the Bar with what the Accused alleged were
monthly billing statements for the Dyer account. The billing statements were dated
for August through December 1996. The Dyers were subsequently shown the billing
statements. The Dyers had never before seen the billing statements. Based on the
testimony of the Accused and the Dyers, the Trial Panel finds that the monthly
billing statements provided by the Accused were never sent to the Dyers. The
Accused did not at any time render an accounting to his client in violation of DR
9-101(C)(3).

Disciplinary Rules Violated

1. DR 9-101(C)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Accused failed to maintain complete records of the client funds provided by client Dyer and failed to render appropriate accounts to the lawyer’s client regarding them.

2. DR 9-101(C)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Accused failed to promptly deliver to client Dyer property in the possession of the lawyer that the client was entitled to receive.

Sanction

...

A. Duty Violated. The most important ethical duties are those that the
lawyer owes to his or her clients. Standards, at 5. The Accused violated his duty to
his client by failing to promptly return client property and failing to account for the client’s funds.

...

The evidence established that the Accused acted with knowledge. He knew
what the client asked him to do. The client and his wife made several requests for
the documents and the accounting. Requests were made both in person and in
writing. The Accused acknowledges receiving the client’s letters. However, he failed
to respond to his client’s requests.

...

The Accused’s prior record of discipline and his conduct in the current case
demonstrate a pattern of misconduct. He has been admonished on two matters for
failing to attend to his professional obligations to his client and to his profession. He has recently been reprimanded for violating DR 6-101(B).

Disposition

The purpose of lawyer discipline is to protect the public in the administration
of justice from lawyers who have not discharged, or are unlikely to properly
discharge, their professional duties. In this case, the Accused clearly failed to
account to his client for client funds in a timely manner and failed to promptly
deliver the client’s property as requested by the client. Drawing together the
Standards and aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the Trial Panel finds it
appropriate that the Accused be suspended from the practice of law for 30 days.