| Description: |
Mark G. Obert (WSBA No. 27299, admitted 1997), of Salem, Oregon, was suspended for 30 days, effective May 27, 2005, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline in accordance with an order of the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon. This discipline was based on his conduct in 1999 and 2000 in three matters involving representation of clients with conflicting interests, neglect of a legal matter, misrepresentation, and failure to return client property promptly.
Matter 1: Mr. Obert was hired in September 1999 to represent a married couple in the husband’s adoption of his wife’s child from a prior relationship. The couple did not have contact with the child’s biological father and were unsure of his residence or mailing address. During the time between the signing of the adoption petition in November 1999 and its filing in January 2000, Mr. Obert’s assistant made several unsuccessful telephone calls to locate the biological father’s residence and mailing address. Mr. Obert did little else to advance the adoption and eventually stopped returning the couple’s phone calls. In July 2000, Mr. Obert was appointed to represent the child’s biological father in three criminal matters. Mr. Obert did not recognize the appointed client as the biological father, and his office lacked any mechanism to identify conflicts of interest. Mr. Obert did not realize there was a conflict until September 2003, when the couple informed him that the child’s biological father was in prison. He subsequently withdrew as the couple’s lawyer, refunded their money, and referred them to another lawyer.
Matter 2: In December 1999, Mr. Obert was appointed to represent a client in a proceeding for post-conviction relief. After a petition for relief was denied, the client instructed Mr. Obert to commence an appeal. Mr. Obert failed to file the notice of appeal within 30 days as required by court rule. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal as untimely. Upon learning of the dismissal, Mr. Obert failed to relay that information promptly to his client and, eventually, cut off all contact with the client. Mr. Obert did not inform the client of the dismissal until five months after its entry.
Matter 3: In March 1999, Mr. Obert was appointed to represent a client on appeal after the court had denied the client’s petition for post-conviction relief. At the beginning of the representation, the client gave Mr. Obert documents relating to his case. In 2001, after the state appellate court had issued a final judgment, the client wrote to Mr. Obert asking him to return those documents in order to pursue federal habeas corpus relief. Despite telephone calls from the client reiterating his need for the documents, Mr. Obert did not return his client’s messages and did not take action to return the files to the client until approximately five months later.
Mr. Obert’s conduct violated Oregon DR 6-101(B), prohibiting a lawyer from neglecting a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer; DR 5-105(E), prohibiting a lawyer from representing multiple current clients in any matters when such representation would result in an actual or likely conflict; DR 1-102(A)(3), prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and DR 9-101(C)(4), requiring a lawyer to promptly deliver to a client as requested by the client the properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive.
Felice P. Congalton represented the Bar Association. Mark G. Obert represented himself. |