In re Abel

“Under ORPC 8.4(a)(3), the Bar must prove ‘by clear and convincing evidence’ that a lawyer had actual knowledge of a false statement at the time the statement was made.”

Respondent appealed a Disciplinary Board decision that concluded respondent violated ORPC 8.4(a)(3) by knowingly making false and misleading statements in a demand letter to an unrepresented party. Respondent argued that the Bar did not prove that he acted with “actual knowledge.”

Respondent argued that his mindset when sending the letter was to communicate a future course of action, applicable if the parties did not settle. The Bar argued that the letter's plain language undercut that claim, because the letter included statements that respondent was communicating with the District Attorney’s and Sheriff’s Offices and threatened the recipient with imminent criminal prosecution, although no such communications or actions had occurred at the time the letter was sent. Under ORPC 8.4(a)(3), the Bar must prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that a lawyer had actual knowledge of a false statement at the time the statement was made. Upon de novo review, the Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence that respondent acted with actual knowledge because the demand letter included repeated false statements and used phrasing that conveyed an imminent threat of criminal action. 

"Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for 30 days."