No Free Bite

An Adjudicator for the Oregon Supreme Court has approved the imposition of a reciprocal public reprimand

Respondent pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery in California arising from a drunken encounter with law enforcement officers after a Stanford football game in October 2017. Respondent was charged with Battery on a Police Officer Engaged in the Performance of Duties and Resisting, Delaying, or Obstructing an Officer, both misdemeanors under California law. He pleaded no contest to an amended charge of Battery and the above counts were dismissed. The court placed Respondent on a two-year probation. He was ordered to stay away from Stanford football games, attend 40 AA meetings, and perform 220 hours of community service through non-profit or pro bono legal work. The court ordered that the probation could be terminated after one year if Respondent completed the terms and conditions.

The conviction was expunged.

In California

The crime was not one involving moral turpitude, but California will impose discipline based on case law for other misconduct warranting discipline. The California State Bar Court initiated a proceeding. Respondent stipulated to the charge and to a sanction of a private reproval with conditions. A private reproval imposed after initiation of a proceeding in California is part of the respondent’s official state bar record, disclosed in response to public inquiries, and is reported as a record of public discipline on the California State Bar’s web page.

As to the Oregon rules

The Bar does not contend that Respondent should be disciplined under ORS 9.527(2). It argues that Respondent’s actions violated RPC 8.4(a)(2) in that the criminal act reflects adversely on Respondent’s fitness as a lawyer. Even though Respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of simple battery, he stipulated to the fact that he committed a battery on a police officer by biting him, and otherwise resisted the authority of the officers he encountered. Petition, Exhibit 1 at p. 10. The Oregon Supreme Court has made clear that this type of conduct runs afoul of the rule, and that the submitted record is sufficient to establish such a violation.

…Given the extra conditions imposed in California, the public reprimand sought here may actually be a lesser sanction than that imposed in California. The imposition of a public reprimand does not result in grave injustice, nor is it offensive to public policy.

(Mike Frisch)