S058434, Opinion — In re Oh

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Submitted on record August 24, 2010, resubmitted March 25, accused disbarred,
commencing 60 days from date of filing of decision; trial panel order imposing
restitution affirmed April 7, 2011

In re Complaint as to the Conduct of
JOHN H. OH,
Accused.
(OSB 08118, 08119, 08120, 08156,
08157, 0927, 0970, 0971, 0988, 0989;
SC S058434)
252 P3d 325

In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, the Oregon State Bar charged the
accused with numerous violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) aris-
ing from his representation of several clients in immigration matters. The accused
did not file an answer to the Bar's formal complaint, and as a result the trial panel
entered an order of default against the accused, concluding that the accused had
committed 52 violations of the RPC in matters involving 12 different clients. As a
sanction, the trial panel ordered that the accused be disbarred and that he pay res-
titution to specific former clients. The accused sought review, but did not file a
brief. Held: On de novo review, the court held that (1) given the accused's failure to
challenge any aspect of the trial panel's order, the accused is not entitled to any dif-
ferent consideration by the court than had he not sought review at all; and (2) the
trial panel order should therefore be affirmed.

The accused is disbarred, commencing 60 days from the date of the filing of this
decision. The trial panel order imposing restitution is affirmed.

# En Banc

On review from a decision of a trial panel of the Disciplinary
Board.

Linn D. Davis, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Tigard,
submitted the brief for the Oregon State Bar.

No appearance contra.

## PER CURIAM

The accused is disbarred, commencing 60 days from the
date of filing of this decision. The trial panel order imposing
restitution is affirmed.

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="Cite as 350 Or 204 (2011)" -->
<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="In re Oh" -->

# PER CURIAM

In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, the Oregon
State Bar charged John Oh (the accused) with numerous vio-
lations of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) arising
from his representation of several clients in immigration
matters. When the accused did not answer the Bar's formal
complaint, the Bar notified the accused that, if he did not
answer the complaint, an order of default would be entered
against him. The accused then requested and received an
extension of time to file an answer. The accused did not file
an answer, however. Nor did he otherwise appear in the pro-
ceeding. Consequently, the trial panel entered an order of
default against the accused. See BR 5.8(a) (providing for
default orders in such circumstances). In that order, the trial
panel concluded that the accused had committed a total of
52 violations of the RPC in matters involving 12 different
clients. As a sanction, the trial panel ordered that the
accused be disbarred and that he pay restitution to specific
former clients. See BR 6.1(a) (authorizing the Bar to order
restitution in conjunction with another sanction).

Although the accused has sought review of the trial
panel's decision, he has not filed an opening brief. The Bar
did so, however. In that brief, the Bar has described the facts
supporting the charges, as well as the appropriateness of the
sanction of disbarment and the order of restitution. After the
Bar filed its brief, the accused tendered a so-called "Form B"
resignation pursuant to Bar Rule of Procedure 9.2. By letter,
this court advised the accused that it would not accept his
resignation unless the accused, within 60 days of that letter,
provided adequately for the safekeeping of and access to the
files of his former Oregon clients. See BR 12.7 (requiring, in
Form B resignation, attorney to certify to same). The accused
neither responded to that letter nor took the requested action
with respect to his files. This court, accordingly, refused to
accept the accused's resignation and reactivated his appeal,
as it advised the accused it would do. The accused still has
not tendered an opening brief in his appeal.

As we noted in a recent lawyer disciplinary matter,
although our review of these matters is de novo under ORS
9.536(2), the court is "free to circumscribe the extent of its

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="Cite as 350 Or 204 (2011)" -->

review due to the absence of briefing or argumentation chal-
lenging the order on review." In re Hartfield, 349 Or 108, 111,
239 P3d 992 (2010). Thus, where review has been requested,
but neither party has filed a brief, we ordinarily will affirm
the order of the trial panel inasmuch as no party has raised
an argument challenging the trial panel order. Id. at 112; see
generally In re Paulson, 346 Or 676, 679 n 3, 216 P3d 859
(2009), adh'd to as modified on recons, 347 Or 529, 225 P3d 41
(2010) ("[O]rdinarily we will consider the issues for our
review to be those framed by the parties' briefs and argu-
ments."). We followed that course recently in In re Murphy,
349 Or 366, 369, 245 P3d 100 (2010).

Here, the Bar filed its brief before Hartfield was
decided. Thus, the Bar did so before this court had explained
that the Bar, pursuant to ORAP 11.25(3)(b), may request by
letter that the matter be submitted without briefing or argu-
ment when the accused does not file a brief. The Bar's brief in
this case does not challenge any aspect of the trial panel
order, but instead supports the violations found by the trial
panel as well as the sanctions imposed. The accused, by fail-
ing to challenge any aspect of the trial panel's order, has
pointlessly invoked the court's jurisdiction and unnecessarily
consumed the resources of both this court and the Bar. Given
the accused's failure to frame any challenge to the trial
panel's order, the accused is not entitled to any different con-
sideration by this court than had he not sought review at all.
We therefore have determined that the trial panel order
should be affirmed.

The accused is disbarred, commencing 60 days from
the date of the filing of this decision. The trial panel order
imposing restitution is affirmed.