|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|In Re: Steven M. McCarthy|
|Supreme Court Case 2|
|Conrad E. Yunker on behalf of Steven M. McCarthy|
Linn D Davis and Susan Roedl Cournoyer on behalf of Oregon State Bar
Statement of Issues:
|In re Steven M. McCarthy (S060882)|
The accused seeks review of a decision by a trial panel of the Oregon State Bar that sanctioned him with a 90-day suspension for violating RPC 1.1, RPC 1.4(a), RPC 1.4(b), and RPC 1.15-1(c) (2008). The Bar’s disciplinary charges against the accused arose as the result of the accused’s representation of a client in a bank foreclosure matter.
On direct review, the issues are:
(1) Did the trial panel correctly conclude that the accused had violated RPC 1.1 by failing to provide his client with competent representation?
(2) Did the trial panel correctly conclude that the accused had violated RPC 1.4(a) by failing to comply with his client’s reasonable requests for information, and to keep her reasonably informed concerning the status of her legal matter?
(3) Did the trial panel correctly conclude that the accused had violated RPC 1.4(b) by failing to explain matters to his client to the extent reasonably necessary to allow her to make informed decisions?
(4) Did the trial panel correctly conclude that the accused had violated RPC 1.15-1(c) (2008) by failing to deposit the fees paid in advance by his client into a lawyer trust account and withdraw them only as earned, or as expenses were incurred?
(5) Did the trial panel correctly conclude that the accused should be suspended from the active practice of law for 90 days?
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: