In re Sione

In determining whether reciprocal discipline is appropriate, the Court must determine whether the misconduct in the state the discipline was imposed constitutes misconduct under the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct and, if so, what sanction is appropriate for such misconduct.

This came from a reciprocal discipline proceeding pursuant to Oregon State Bar Rules of Procedure (BR) 3.5. Attorney practiced law in Oregon and California. She entered a stipulation for discipline in the form of public reproval with the State Bar Court of California. The Oregon State Bar, in response, recommended public reprimand as reciprocal discipline. The Court addressed two issues: whether attorney was afforded notice and adequate opportunity to be heard in California and whether discipline should have been imposed based on the misconduct that occurred in California. The Court finds attorney never established a basis for concluding that she was not afforded notice or an adequate opportunity to be heard. In failing to appear for trial in California, attorney violated RCP 8.4(a)(4). Attorney also failed to respond to a disciplinary investigation, violating RCP 8.1(a)(2). The Court applied mitigating circumstances, and found the mitigating circumstances outweighed the sole aggravating factor. The accused was publicly reprimanded.