Appendix C

 

REASONS FOR FAILURE TO ADMIT IN READMISSION AND ADMISSION CASES

 

 

Readmission After Disbarment

Case

Crime

Character

Remorse

Restitution

Substances

Works

Other

Griffith[1]

Fraud

Admitted

Nash[2]

Pedophilia

Not proved

Not proved

 

 

 

 

Gortmaker[3]

Theft

 

Not proved

 

 

 

 

Graham[4]

Fraud

 

 

Not proved

 

 

 

Koken[5]

Bad Checks

 

 

 

 

 

Not proved

Admission Cases[6]

Jaffee[7]

Drugs

Admitted

Parker[8]

Fraud

 

Not proved

 

 

 

 

Rowell[9]

Drugs

Admitted

Fine[10]

Bombing

Not proved

 

 

 

 

 

Taylor[11]

Shoplifting

 

Not proved

 

 

 

 

Jolles[12]

Communism

Admitted

 



[1] In re Griffith, 323 Or 99, 913 P.2d 695 (1996)

[2] In re Nash, 317 Or 354; 855 P.2d 1112 (1993) Nash did not testify at his hearing and did not put on general character references.  He relied solely on professional mental health professionals.

[3] In re Gortmaker, 308 Ore. 482; 782 P.2d 421 (1989). 

[4] In re Graham, 299 Ore. 511; 703 P.2d 970 (1985)

[5] In re Koken, 214 Ore. 357; 329 P.2d 894 (1958) Koken was denied admission because he continued to have debt problems, including a bankruptcy and civil judgments, after his discipline.

[6] In admission cases, an applicant who has committed acts that would have resulted in the disbarment of an admitted attorney must prove that five years have elapsed since the disqualifying acts and that the applicant has reformed in the meantime.  Thus, the analysis is the same as for a disbarred lawyer seeding readmission.  It is unclear how cases like this will be handled under the new rule.

[7] In re Jaffee, 319 Ore. 172; 874 P.2d 1299 (1994). Jaffe was convicted of growing marijuana for distribution. 

[8] In re Parker, 314 Or. 143; 838 P.2d 54 (1992). Parker impersonated a State Senator on the phone to obtain personal credit.

[9] In re Rowell, 305 Or. 584; 754 P.2d 905 (1988).

[10] In re Fine, 303 Or 314, 736 P2d 183 (1987) Fine participated in the bombing of a building while associated with a movement opposing the war in Vietnam.  The court found that he was deceptive in his application proceedings.

[11] In re Taylor, 293 Or. 285; 647 P.2d 462  (1982).  Talyor committee theft, perjury, and manipulation of the Bankruptcy system.  He was less than honest in his application proceedings.

[12] In re Jolles, 235 Or. 262; 383 P.2d 388  (1963).  This case is an artifact of the McCarthy Era.