In Re Complaint as to Conduct of Sundkvist, 974 P.2d 206 (Or. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Complaint as to Conduct of Sundkvist, 974 P.2d 206 (Or. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Crews (colo, 2006-03-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" People v. Crews (2×)
Colo. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Sundkvist, 328 Or. 289 , 974 P.2d 206 (1999) [lawyer who committed forgery and theft when he signed his partner’s name on firm cheeks made payable to the lawyer for funds he was not entitled to receive, was disbarred for violating DR 1-102(A)(2), DR 1-102(A)(3), and ORS 9.527(1) ]; In re Garvey, 325 Or. 34 , 932 P.2d 549 (1997) [lawyer who violated, among other rules, DR 1-102(A)(2) and DR 1-102(A)(3) by engaging in the criminal acts of perjury, false swearing, aiding escape, and supplying contraband in the course of representing a client, was disbarred]; In re Leonhardt, 324 Or. 4…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of TERRY G. SUNDKVIST, Accused
OSB 96-95, 96-96; SC S44566.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Feb 11, 1999.
974 P.2d 206
1999 Ore. LEXIS 68
Jane E. Angus, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Lake Oswego, filed a brief on behalf of the Oregon State Bar., No appearance contra.
Carson, Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Durham, Kulongoski.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
[*291] PER CURIAM

In this disciplinary proceeding, the Oregon State Bar (Bar) charged the accused with violating Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule (DR) 1-102(A)(2) (engaging in a criminal act that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law), DR 1-102(A)(3) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), DR 1-103(C) (failure to cooperate), and ORS 9.527(1) (conduct for which the accused would be denied admission to the Bar, if applying) and (4) (wilful deceit or misconduct in the legal profession).

A trial panel of the disciplinary board conducted a hearing on the charges. The accused made no appearance, but admitted the facts on which the Bar based its charges. That trial panel found that the accused had violated each of the disciplinary rules and statutes alleged by the Bar and imposed the sanction of disbarment.

A recitation of the pertinent facts would not benefit the Bar or the public. On de novo review of the record, we conclude that the accused is guilty of each of the Bar’s charges and that the appropriate sanction is disbarment.

The accused is disbarred.