In re Munn

Failure to review discovery results in inadequate advice that violates RPC 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4(b) and warrants suspension.

Respondent appeals his 24-month suspension from practicing law. The Karpel case-management system shows that Mr. Munn failed to review discovery before advising his clients. This led to multiple clients receiving prison sentences and accepting plea deals without getting proper legal advice. Respondent claimed the Bar erred because Karpel’s evidence lacked a proper foundation, the allegations rested only on Foster’s grievance, and following client instructions to resolve cases quickly did not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, 1.1 states that lawyers must provide competent representation; 1.3 states lawyers cannot neglect a legal matter entrusted to lawyers; and 1.4(b) requires a lawyer to explain a matter reasonably necessary for clients to make an informed decision. Respondent’s first claim fails because Karpel is a reliable source used in practice, respondent did not raise this objection during the trial panel, and the Oregon Evidence Code does not apply to Bar proceedings. The second claim fails because, although Foster’s grievance initiated the investigation, testimony from clients and attorneys confirmed the respondent’s lack of due diligence. The third fails because competent defense attorney legal advice requires discovery; by avoiding it, the respondent could not articulate the risks and alternatives, meaning his clients could not make qualified decisions. Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 24 months, effective 60 days from the filing of this decision.