|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|In Re: Peter Carini|
|Supreme Court Case 3|
|Lee S. Werdell on behalf of Peter Carini|
Stacy J. Hankin on behalf of Oregon State Bar
Statement of Issues:
|In re Peter Carini (S060708)|
This case comes before the Oregon Supreme Court on direct review of an order of a trial panel of the Oregon State Bar suspending the accused from the practice of law for 30-days. The accused was found to have violated RPC 8.4(a)(4) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by repeatedly failing to appear for scheduled court proceedings.
The issues on direct review are as follows:
(1) Whether the Bar failed to prove that the accused's conduct caused "substantial harm."
(2) Whether the disciplinary panel erred by considering in a single proceeding conduct engaged in by the accused with regard to four separate clients.
(3) Whether the disciplinary panel's "apparent finding of negligence" was proper.
(4) Whether RPC 8.4(a)(4) should be construed to include an intent element.
(5) Whether this court should reverse its decision in In re Rook, 276 Or 695, 556 P2d 1351 (1976) and hold that RPC 8.4(a)(4) is void for vagueness.
(6) Whether the Bar's prosecution of the accused violated his rights to Due Process and Equal Protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: