Mick
Troutdale,#2
Fri, August 21, 2009
The truth of the matter is, regardless of the merits of the complaint, the Oregon Bar would have overlooked the lawyer's behavior in any case. As a general rule, the Bar will only act to discipline attorneys who are guilty of FINANCIAL irregularity. That's because financial inappropriateness is relatively easy to prove by third parties - numbers either add up, or they don't.
When it comes to legal malpractice or lack of ethics however, they tend to turn a blind eye, and hold themselves out as the absolute final arbiters of what constitutes "appropriate" legal practice.
On the other hand, unions don't generally throw out dues-paying members, if they can avoid it; and, of course, the Oregon State Bar is a lawyers' union, before it's anything else. If it's not, then where IS the lawyers' union? Every professional, trade and labor group in this country has a union/trade group - from the doctors to the dockworkers - are we supposed to seriously believe that the lawyers have, somehow overlooked this common component of modern society.
Or, is it more reasonable to assume, that they have succeeded in using their numerous positions in state government to insulate their union, by making it into a quasi-state functionary.
I noticed the complainant referred to the Bar as a "state agency"; that is a common mistake. In fact, the OSB is actually a "public corporation" - like O.H.S.U. Oregon Health Sciences University), and SAIF (State Accident Insurance Fund) - which is vested with some governmental authority; but there's actually a big difference.
First, as the Oregon Supreme Court recently ruled, in a case involving a medical malpractice claim against O.H.S.U.; public corporations are NOT protected by the state's tort claim liability limit of $200,000 for claims against state agencies.
Second, as a Federal court ruled several years ago, bar associations are NOT immunized from Federal Anti-Trust law (and, presumably, RICO as well).
As regards the conduct of this particular attorney, it sound like he did "drop the ball". Even if he felt the case had "no merit", as he claims, it was STILL improper to wait until the last minute to let it go. Had he told his client of his reservations at least 30 days before her statute of limitations ran out, she might have had an opportunity to find an attorney who would pick it up; by holding onto the case until the claim was tolled, he robbed her of that opportunity.
For letting it go like that, I do believe that he should have been liable to her for the potential damages that could have been gained at trial; unfortunately, the statute of limitations has now run on a tort claim against the attorney (which is likely one reason why the PLF dragged the claim out).
However, Oregon also has a six-year statute of limitations on "breach of contract" suits, and the complainant clearly had a contactual agreement with the attorney, which, if her story is accurate, he clearly breached by his failure to timely perform. I would suggest that the complainant check in the Portland metro area for a good legal malpractice/business law attorney.
Karstan Lovorn
Portland,#3REBUTTAL Individual responds
Wed, January 23, 2008
I think the report speaks for itself. Due to confidentiality reasons, I cannot relay more facts of the case than are already revealed here, but I felt that a suit on my client's behalf would ultimately fail. Under the rules of ethics, I cannot file a case that has no merit. I did the best I could to preserve her case in the event that she decided to pursue it on her own or with another attorney. As "K.P." mentions, her bar complaint was denied (twice) because it had no merit. The Bar felt that I had not done anything unethical. Further, her malpractice claim against me was denied for the same reasons. She has been unable to find a malpractice attorney to take the case because no attorney would believe that she had a winnable case. It grieves me that there is someone out there who thinks of me as a racist. At the time that I met with KP, I was on the board of the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a national civil rights organization. I became a lawyer to fight injustice, not to facilitate it.
Dagny
San Diego,#4Consumer Comment
Wed, January 23, 2008
As one of Karstan's sisters, I can tell you that my brother is so far from racist it isn't even funny. When I was 12 and he was 14 he moved up to Pittsburgh, PA. That is where our father lived. He went to school there (Peabody HS) which if I remember correctly was 70% black when he went. My father lived on a street where he was 1 of a few white people. Now if anyone in my family is (was) racist it was my dad's mom. She grew up in Mississippi and really did not like blacks. But once she went senile she liked everyone. So to say that my brother is a racist you could be opening yourself up to slander. I am not saying that you were not treated horribly by the people at that Shell station. But to say that my brother was slacking off on your case because you are black is prepostrous. We are white. I must say that at least 3 of us are VERY white (skin tone only). I have had black friends in the past and our older sisters' best friend is black (but you would never know it by talking to him). I do not know about my brother since we have been out of contact really since he left when he was 14. If you see things in only one way, it is only going to come to you in that way. Not everyone is against you because of your skin color. Did you ever think it might be because of your tone? Your body language? Your diction? Your attitude? I don't care what color someone is but if you are going to be a b***h to me, I am going to treat you like crap. If you change your attitude you might get more help. It worked for me! Oh and suing a white attorney who isn't racist for a possible racist act isn't in your best interest. You will never win. Dagny (no I am not lovorn anymore)