ENTRY FORM

CALENDAR STATUS: Cancelled
SC Number:
S068386
CA Number:
Case Title:
In Re: Donald R. Slayton
Date:
11/09/2021
Time:
01:30 PM
Location:
Via Video - Case 3
Attorneys:
Susan R. Cournoyer on behalf of Oregon State Bar
Jason E. Thompson on behalf of Donald R. Slayton
Comments:
Statement of Issues:
(1) Did respondent violate RPC 1.2(a) (lawyer shall abide by client's decisions) when, after a client discharged him and told him that she was dismissing the action he had filed on her behalf, he moved to vacate the dismissal (which the court had entered on the client's pro se stipulated motion)?

(2) Did respondent violate RPC 1.6(a) (lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client without client's informed consent) when, in the aforementioned motion to vacate the dismissal of his client's action and in attachments thereto, he set out information about the client's mental state, marriage, etc., that he had obtained through his representation of the client?

(3) Did respondent violate RPC 1.9(c)(1) ( lawyer shall not use information relating to the representation of a former client to the disadvantage of the former client) when, in the aforementioned motion to vacate the dismissal of his client's action and in attachments thereto, he set out information about the client's mental state, marriage, etc., that would be embarrassing and damaging to the client?

(4) Did respondent violate RPC 3.3(a)(1) (knowingly making false statements of fact to a tribunal or failing to correct a false statement of material fact) when he failed to immediately correct material errors in affidavits he submitted to a court in support of a default judgment he was seeking, and in the resulting default judgment?

(5) Did respondent violate RPC 8.4(a)(4), by engaging in repeated acts that caused "some" harm to the administration of justice, in his efforts to obtain a default judgment for his client?

(6) Did respondent violate RPC 1.3 (neglecting a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer) when he accepted a retainer to represent clients in a matter and then failed to work on the matter or communicate with the clients for the next 18 months?

(7) Did respondent violate RPC 1.4(a) (failure to keep a client reasonably informed) when he accepted a retainer to represent clients in a matter and then failed to work on the matter or communicate with the clients for the next 18 months?

(8) Assuming that respondent did violate the foregoing RPCs, is the 18-month suspension proposed by the trial panel an appropriate sanction?

These summaries of cases are prepared for the benefit of members of the media to assist them in reporting the court's activities to the public. Parties and practitioners should not rely on the summaries, or the statement of issues to be decided in the summaries, as indicating the questions that the Supreme Court will consider. Regarding the questions that the Supreme Court may consider, see Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating:
Merit Briefs


Last Revised: 10/20/2021