{"count":16962,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz01My4wNzU0NCZzPTgzNTY3MCZ0PW8mZD0yMDI2LTA5LTI5JnA9Mg%3D%3D&q=IMPROPER+CONDUCT+PROFESSIONAL+CONDUCT+AND+DISCIPLINE&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6480769/office-of-professional-conduct-v-bernacchi/","attorney":"","caseName":"Office of Professional Conduct v. Bernacchi","caseNameFull":"","citation":["513 P.3d 669","2022 UT 25"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6480769,"court":"Utah Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Utah","court_id":"utah","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-06-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 20210034","docket_id":63405211,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:23:13.850770Z","date_created":"2022-06-23T15:16:19.418132Z","score":{"bm25":99.76121}},"neutralCite":"2022 UT 25","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1033306,1085158,2818764,4205253,4220256,6317348],"download_url":"http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Office of Professional Conduct v. Bernacchi20220623.pdf","id":6352902,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/06/23/office_of_professional_conduct_v._bernacchi.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:23:13.960491Z","date_created":"2022-06-23T15:16:19.427520Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0c6b5e6c512bc58d2282bff96b45fa04e830ef16","snippet":"                            2022 UT 25\n\n\n                               IN THE\n\n       SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH\n\n     In the Matter of the Discipline of DOUG BERNACCHI, #10336\n\n                OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT,\n                            Appellee,\n                                 v.\n                         DOUG BERNACCHI,\n                            Appellant.\n\n                           No. 20210034\n                        Heard: June 6, 2022\n                        Fi","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6352902],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4615680/office-of-professional-conduct-v-dahlquist-in-re-discipline-of-dahlquist/","attorney":"\n  Billy L. Walker, Adam C. Bevis, Salt Lake City, for appellant\n , \n  Michael F. Skolnick, Salt Lake City, for appellee\n ","caseName":"Office of Professional Conduct v. Dahlquist (In Re Discipline of Dahlquist)","caseNameFull":"In the MATTER OF the DISCIPLINE OF Charles W. DAHLQUIST, II Office of Professional Conduct, Appellant, v. Charles W. Dahlquist, II, Appellee.","citation":["2019 UT 15","443 P.3d 1205"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":4615680,"court":"Utah Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Utah","court_id":"utah","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-04-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 20170550","docket_id":15036384,"judge":"Petersen, Durrant, Lee, Himonas, Pearce","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:36:13.089746Z","date_created":"2019-05-01T18:46:54.694909Z","score":{"bm25":99.23971}},"neutralCite":"2019 UT 15","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2551505,2600199,2634535,2827591,2829631,4147619,4315207,5149602,5157664,5158540],"download_url":"http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/OPC v. Dahlquist20190430_20170550_15.pdf","id":4392933,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/04/30/opc_v._dahlquist.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:21:14.049504Z","date_created":"2019-05-01T18:46:54.702111Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0bb974ee6175153413a0c5e02e2011b164f9a592","snippet":"\n\n\n  Justice Petersen, opinion of the Court:\n \n\n\n   INTRODUCTION\n  \n\n\n  ¶1 The Office of Professional Conduct (OPC) filed an attorney discipline case against Charles W. Dahlquist, II for repeatedly violating a judge's order\n  \n   in limine\n  \n  during a 2008 jury trial. No one present at the trial alerted the OPC to the conduct. Rather, the OPC learned","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4392933],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4370359/office-of-professional-conduct-v-barrett/","attorney":"Todd Wahlquist, Salt Lake City, for appellant, Robert K. Hilder, Park City, for appellee","caseName":"Office of Professional Conduct v. Barrett","caseNameFull":"In the MATTER OF the DISCIPLINE OF Joseph P. BARRETT. Office of Professional Conduct, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Joseph P. Barrett, Appellee and Cross-Appellant","citation":["2017 UT 10","391 P.3d 1031","2017 WL 695446"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":4370359,"court":"Utah Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Utah","court_id":"utah","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-02-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 20150190","docket_id":4608720,"judge":"Himonas, Durrant, Lee, Durham, Pearce","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-20T18:57:43.074395Z","date_created":"2017-02-22T20:20:35.224277Z","score":{"bm25":96.255875}},"neutralCite":"2017 UT 10","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1276432,2449627,2499671,2611450,2612937,2818764],"download_url":"http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Discip. of Joseph Barrett20170221.pdf","id":4147619,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/02/21/discip._of_joseph_barrett.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:30:49.245788Z","date_created":"2017-02-22T20:20:35.230621Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"aae9ab96dfdfe8e92553ddcb6a2b133ba8774baa","snippet":"\n\n\n  On Direct Appeal\n \n\n  Justice Himonas,\n \n\n  opinion of the Court:\n \n\n  INTRODUCTION\n \n\n  ¶ 1 Attorney Joseph Barrett exchanged legal services for construction work on his home and yard, thereby depriving his law firm, Snow, Christensen & Martineau P.C. (SCM), of the legal fees accrued from those eases. The distri","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4147619],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5345352/ciardi-v-office-of-professional-conduct/","attorney":"John L. Ciardi, Pro Se‘, Todd Wahlquist, Salt Lake City, for appel-lee","caseName":"Ciardi v. Office of Professional Conduct","caseNameFull":"John L. CIARDI v. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT","citation":["379 P.3d 1287","2016 UT 36","2016 Utah LEXIS 128","2016 WL 4529689"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":5345352,"court":"Utah Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Utah","court_id":"utah","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-08-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 20140370","docket_id":61693027,"judge":"Authored, Been, Does, Durham, Durrant, Former, Herein, Lee, Pearce","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:47:50.602020Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:22:20.251898Z","score":{"bm25":91.842606}},"neutralCite":"2016 UT 36","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":5178206,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T00:22:55.583132Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:22:20.266393Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nJustice Durham,\nopinion of the Court:\nINTRODUCTION\n1 John L. Ciardi appeals from a judgment of the district court disbarring him from the *1288practice of law for violations of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. We affirm the district court's decision with respect to the violations of the rules but reverse and revise with ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5178206],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4450259/in-re-oklahoma-rules-of-professional-conduct/","attorney":"","caseName":"IN RE: OKLAHOMA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2017 OK 52"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":4450259,"court":"Supreme Court of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla.","court_id":"okla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-06-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":null,"docket_id":6239366,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-23T21:47:53.569031Z","date_created":"2017-12-11T20:23:11.454228Z","score":{"bm25":81.69439}},"neutralCite":"2017 OK 52","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[4200500],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=480988","id":4227512,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2017/06/19/in_re_oklahoma_rules_of_professional_conduct_3.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:26:00.492591Z","date_created":"2017-12-11T20:23:11.459947Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a3921312d6ec077c5cb42febfd0843c383f171fe","snippet":" \r\n\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\tOSCN Found Document:IN RE: OKLAHOMA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT\r\n\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\r\n\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\r\n        \r\n            \t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n     \r\n    OSCN navigation\r\n\r\n\r\n    \r\n        \r\n        Home\r\n\r\n        \r\n        Courts\r\n\r\n        \r\n                \r\n\t    Court Dockets\r\n\t\t\t <","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=480988","id":4181287,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2017/06/19/in_re_oklahoma_rules_of_professional_conduct_1.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T05:31:47.135295Z","date_created":"2017-06-27T16:13:16.151617Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d37c745855cb9745a2c8a30fabb5af225980cb2b","snippet":" \r\n\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\tOSCN Found Document:IN RE: OKLAHOMA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT\r\n\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\r\n\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\r\n        \r\n            \t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n     \r\n    OSCN navigation\r\n\r\n\r\n    \r\n        \r\n        Home\r\n\r\n        \r\n        Courts\r\n\r\n        \r\n                \r\n\t    Court Dockets\r\n\t\t\t <","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=480988","id":4200500,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2017/06/19/in_re_oklahoma_rules_of_professional_conduct_2.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T05:50:19.301967Z","date_created":"2017-08-31T18:16:36.400564Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9fffbcc5ec4afaf0fc2fea99bf304b460ef9fce1","snippet":" \r\n\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\tOSCN Found Document:IN RE: OKLAHOMA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT\r\n\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\r\n\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\r\n        \r\n            \t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n     \r\n    OSCN navigation\r\n\r\n\r\n    \r\n        \r\n        Home\r\n\r\n        \r\n        Courts\r\n\r\n        \r\n                \r\n\t    Court Dockets\r\n\t\t\t <","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=480988","id":4179285,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2017/06/19/in_re_oklahoma_rules_of_professional_conduct.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T05:29:50.801563Z","date_created":"2017-06-20T21:16:13.171326Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6c5b0b404b11748257b85931b39e669f6f74ddd1","snippet":" \r\n\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\tOSCN Found Document:IN RE: OKLAHOMA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT\r\n\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\r\n\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\r\n        \r\n            \t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n     \r\n    OSCN navigation\r\n\r\n\r\n    \r\n        \r\n        Home\r\n\r\n        \r\n        Courts\r\n\r\n        \r\n                \r\n\t    Court Dockets\r\n\t\t\t <","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4200500,4179285,4227512,4181287],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4379675/judicial-conduct-commission-v-hagar/","attorney":"Kara J. Erickson (argued) and Ryan A. Heintz (on brief), P.O. Box 2297, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-2297, for petitioner., Richard L. Hagar, self-represented, P.O. Box 5005, Minot, N.D. 58702-5005, respondent.","caseName":"Judicial Conduct Commission v. Hagar","caseNameFull":"In the MATTER OF the Application for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Richard L. HAGAR, Judge of the District Court. Judicial Conduct Commission, Petitioner v. Richard L. Hagar, Respondent","citation":["2017 ND 64","891 N.W.2d 735","2017 WL 1196672","2017 N.D. LEXIS 72"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4379675,"court":"North Dakota Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"N.D.","court_id":"nd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-03-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20160283","docket_id":4658957,"judge":"Carol, Crothers, Daniel, Fair, Gerald, Jerod, Kapsner, Lisa, McEvers, Per Curiam, Ronning, Tufte, VandeWalle","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:28:26.599136Z","date_created":"2017-03-30T20:10:07.766551Z","score":{"bm25":73.96738}},"neutralCite":"2017 ND 64","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[897495,899130,1428733,1990433,2337063,2653333],"download_url":"http://www.ndcourts.gov/wp/20160283.wpd","id":4156928,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"wpd/2017/03/30/judicial_conduct_commission_v._hagar.wpd","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T14:37:17.443353Z","date_created":"2017-03-30T20:10:07.772670Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a53928ea69bcd562ef8b10f490498ae176d077b9","snippet":"\n\n\n  SUSPENSION ORDERED\n \n\n  Per Curiam.\n \n\n  [¶ 1] Richard L. Hagar, judge of the district court for the North Central Judicial District, filed exceptions to the Judicial\n   \n   *737\n   \n  Conduct Commission’s recommended findings that he violated provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to d","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4156928],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1384501/thompson-v-supreme-court-committee-on-professional-conduct/","attorney":"Jeff Rosenzweig, for appellant., Office of Professional Conduct, by: Stark Ligón and Michael E. Harmon, for appellee.","caseName":"Thompson v. Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct","caseNameFull":"Morris W. THOMPSON v. SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT","citation":["252 S.W.3d 125","369 Ark. 186","2007 Ark. LEXIS 191"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":1384501,"court":"Supreme Court of Arkansas","court_citation_string":"Ark.","court_id":"ark","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2007-03-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"06-1069","docket_id":929168,"judge":"Tom Glaze","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T03:33:13.404263Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T13:12:37.190420Z","score":{"bm25":70.04623}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":3748,"cites":[1773731,2427042,3267811],"download_url":null,"id":1384501,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T07:49:19.997348Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T05:53:30.823099Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"47e2436ebf4658bed9848d6eda5e0b87c9c97436","snippet":"\n252 S.W.3d 125 (2007)\nMorris W. THOMPSON, Appellant,\nv.\nSUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, Appellee.\nNo. 06-1069.\nSupreme Court of Arkansas.\nMarch 8, 2007.\n*126 Jeff Rosenzweig, Little Rock, for appellant.\nOffice of Professional Conduct, by: Stark Ligon and Michael E. Harmon, Little Rock, for appellee.\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1384501],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4419211/rose-v-office-of-profl-conduct/","attorney":"Susan Rose, pro se, Sandy, for appellant., Adam C. Bevis, Billy Walker, Salt Lake City, for appellee.","caseName":"Rose v. Office of Prof'l Conduct","caseNameFull":"Susan ROSE, Appellant, v. OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, Appellee.","citation":["2017 UT 50","424 P.3d 134","845 Utah Adv. Rep. 83","2017 WL 3497514","2017 Utah LEXIS 126"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":4419211,"court":"Utah Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Utah","court_id":"utah","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-08-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 20151037","docket_id":6138925,"judge":"Pearce","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:40:03.705827Z","date_created":"2017-08-16T19:15:17.343649Z","score":{"bm25":69.54504}},"neutralCite":"2017 UT 50","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[85330,110742,111507,1172111,2329269,2449627,2464273,2582098,2585456,2625087,2633488,2639915,2674672,3205090,4115494,4148038,4174241,4198425,4967432,5157664,5178206],"download_url":"http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/OPC v. Rose20170815_20151037_50.pdf","id":4196464,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/08/15/opc_v._rose.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:04:26.882869Z","date_created":"2017-08-16T19:15:17.349690Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"74d1d5daf1efe19ca9018fe72fcb7532ef0f37ab","snippet":"\n\n\n  Justice Pearce, opinion of the Court:\n \n\n\n   INTRODUCTION\n  \n\n\n  ¶ 1 The district court disbarred Susan Rose for violations of Utah's Rules of Professional Conduct in cases Rose handled in both federal and state courts. Her disbarment came after the district court struck her answer and entered default judgment against her. The disbarment did not come sudde","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4196464],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2653333/judicial-conduct-commission-v-hagar/","attorney":"Kara J. Johnson, Bismarck, N.D., for petitioner., Richard L. Hagar, Judge of the District Court, Minot, N.D., respondent; self-represented.","caseName":"Judicial Conduct Commission v. Hagar","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the Application for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Richard L. HAGAR, Judge of the District Court Judicial Conduct Commission, Petitioner v. Richard L. Hagar, Respondent","citation":["2014 ND 33","842 N.W.2d 873","2014 WL 563806"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":2653333,"court":"North Dakota Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"N.D.","court_id":"nd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-02-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20130278","docket_id":87433,"judge":"Vande Walle, Maring, Sandstrom, Kapsner, McEvers","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-11T00:41:23.808107Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T06:28:45.115029Z","score":{"bm25":66.426476}},"neutralCite":"2014 ND 33","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[897495,899130,1990433],"download_url":"http://www.ndcourts.gov/wp/20130278.wpd","id":2653333,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"wpd/2014/02/13/judicial_conduct_commission_v._hagar.wpd","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T21:38:26.815225Z","date_created":"2014-02-14T01:03:13.474236Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3ca9fb2666ef2d4c3bd034e06217c7095bb9c723","snippet":"\n\n\n  PER CURIAM.\n \n\n  [¶ 1] Richard L. Hagar, judge of the district court for the North Central Judicial District, filed exceptions to the Judicial Conduct Commission’s recommended findings that he violated provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to diligently and promptly decide judicial matters assigned to him. He also objects to the Commission’s recommended sanctions. We ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2653333],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2333746/stilley-v-supreme-court-committee-on-professional-conduct/","attorney":"Appellant, pro se., Stark Ligón, for appellee.","caseName":"Stilley v. Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct","caseNameFull":"Oscar STILLEY v. SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE on PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT","citation":["259 S.W.3d 395","370 Ark. 294","2007 Ark. LEXIS 391"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":2333746,"court":"Supreme Court of Arkansas","court_citation_string":"Ark.","court_id":"ark","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2007-06-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"06-972","docket_id":2203768,"judge":"Donald L. Corbin","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T10:43:56.372434Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T22:37:13.111550Z","score":{"bm25":66.18899}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":3742,"cites":[107654,1368655,1402022,1439142,1467012,1495689,1576657,1710357,1724384,1738935,1747767,1773731,1874236,1876576,1876893,2105738,2349378,2406374,2406498,2427042,2450074],"download_url":null,"id":2333746,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T18:57:42.618243Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:08:48.720638Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2566a8a86cebfdf13d60de5327f676985b83c8cb","snippet":"\n259 S.W.3d 395 (2007)\nOscar STILLEY, Appellant,\nv.\nSUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, Appellee.\nNo. 06-972.\nSupreme Court of Arkansas.\nJune 21, 2007.\n*397 Appellant, Fort Smith, AR, pro se.\nStark Ligon, Little Rock, AR, for appellee.\nDONALD L. CORBIN, Justice.\nAppellant Oscar Stilley appeals fro","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2333746],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8282141/in-re-charges-of-unprofessional-conduct-in-panel-file-no-41310/","attorney":"William R. Sieben, James Si Ballentine, Schwebel Goetz & Sieben, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Charles E. Lund-berg, Lundberg Legal Ethics, P.A., Rose-ville, Minnesota, for appellant., Susan M. Humiston, Director, Megan Engelhardt, Senior Assistant Director, Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondent.","caseName":"In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct in Panel File No. 41310","caseNameFull":"IN RE CHARGES OF UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT IN PANEL FILE NO. 41310","citation":["899 N.W.2d 821","2017 WL 3272099","2017 Minn. LEXIS 479"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8282141,"court":"Supreme Court of Minnesota","court_citation_string":"Minn.","court_id":"minn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-08-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A17-0160","docket_id":65460290,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T18:08:14.507943Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T09:54:41.032903Z","score":{"bm25":61.715244}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8248122,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T15:49:52.195159Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T09:54:41.039527Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION\nPER CURIAM.\nIn this case, appellant, a Minnesota attorney, contests a private admonition issued by a panel of the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board (Panel) for disclosing confidential communications with a former client, in violation of Minn. R. Prof, Conduct 1.9(c)(2). Appellant contends that he did not disclose confidential communications with a.former client and that the decisions of an","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8248122],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5284616/alred-v-commonwealth-judicial-conduct-commission/","attorney":"Marcus S. Carey, Erlanger, KY, Counsel for Appellant., Jeffrey C. Mando, Louis D. Kelly, Adams, Stepner, Woltermann & Dusing, PLLC, Covington, KY, George F. Rabe, Lexington, KY, Counsel for Appellee.","caseName":"Alred v. Commonwealth, Judicial Conduct Commission","caseNameFull":"Russell D. ALRED, Circuit Judge of the 26th Judicial Circuit, Movant v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION","citation":["395 S.W.3d 417","2012 WL 3000383"],"citeCount":21,"cluster_id":5284616,"court":"Kentucky Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Ky.","court_id":"ky","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2012-07-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 2011-SC-000558-RR","docket_id":60617694,"judge":"Abramson, Cunningham, Minton, Noble, Schroder, Scott, Venters","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:32:14.588567Z","date_created":"2021-10-02T17:10:29.793059Z","score":{"bm25":59.037823}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":5112905,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T23:36:57.029670Z","date_created":"2021-10-02T17:10:29.827670Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOpinion of the Court by\nChief Justice MINTON.\nRussell D. Aired, Judge of the 26th Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, became the focus of a lengthy investigation by the Judicial Conduct Commission, culminating in formal charges consisting of twenty allegations of misconduct in office. Following an adversarial hearing on these charges, the commission found official misconduct on nine of the charges and ordered Judge A","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5112905,5112906,5112907],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8281320/inquiry-into-the-conduct-of-the-honorable-perez/","attorney":"Douglas A. Kelley, Steven E. Wolter, Kelley, Wolter & Scott, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for the Board on Judicial Standards., Frederick E. Finch, Bassford Remele, Minneapolis, MN, for The Honorable George W. Perez.","caseName":"Inquiry into the Conduct of the Honorable Perez","caseNameFull":"Inquiry into the Conduct of The Honorable George W. PEREZ","citation":["843 N.W.2d 562","2014 WL 130786","2014 Minn. LEXIS 5"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8281320,"court":"Supreme Court of Minnesota","court_citation_string":"Minn.","court_id":"minn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-01-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. A12-2118","docket_id":65459469,"judge":"Consideration, Lillehaug, Took","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T18:07:56.222183Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T09:37:55.126906Z","score":{"bm25":58.216877}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8247193,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T01:50:19.528665Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T09:37:55.133928Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION\nPER CURIAM.\nThis proceeding arises from a complaint filed by the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards (“Board”) against the Honorable George W. Perez, former judge of the Minnesota Tax Court, alleging violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Minnesota law. Following a hearing, a three-member panel (“Panel”) found that Judge Perez failed to issue decisions in a timely manner, made false certific","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8247193],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8280349/inquiry-into-the-conduct-of-galler/","attorney":"Douglas A. Kelley, Steven E. Wolter, Kelley, Wolter & Scott, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Board on Judicial Standards., Thomas J. Weidner, Amanda E. Prutz-man, Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling, PLLP, Stillwater, Minnesota, for the Honorable Gregory G. Galler.","caseName":"Inquiry into the Conduct of Galler","caseNameFull":"Inquiry into the CONDUCT OF the Honorable Gregory G. GALLER","citation":["805 N.W.2d 240","2011 Minn. LEXIS 701","2011 WL 5386623"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8280349,"court":"Supreme Court of Minnesota","court_citation_string":"Minn.","court_id":"minn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-11-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. A11-0149","docket_id":65458498,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-10T23:41:19.426258Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T09:33:15.797564Z","score":{"bm25":57.706017}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8245903,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T15:49:21.452874Z","date_created":"2022-10-16T09:33:15.805303Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION\nPER CURIAM.\nThe Board on Judicial Standards has appealed a hearing panel’s dismissal of a formal complaint against the Honorable Gregory G. Galler, a district court judge in the Tenth Judicial District. The Board charged Judge Galler with creating an appearance of impropriety during an omnibus hearing in a DWI case. The Board asserts, among other claims, that Judge Galler ordered a criminal defense a","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8245903],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2057861/inquiry-into-the-conduct-of-the-blakely/","attorney":"Douglas A. Kelley, Steven E. Wolter, Kelley & Wolter, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Board on Judicial Standards., Martin A. Cole, Director, Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, St. Paul, MN, for Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility., Timothy L. Blakely, Eagan, MN, pro se; and Thomas M. Kelly, Kelly & Jacobson, Minneapolis, MN, for the Honorable Timothy L. Blakely.","caseName":"Inquiry Into the Conduct of the Blakely","caseNameFull":"INQUIRY INTO the CONDUCT OF the Honorable Timothy BLAKELY","citation":["772 N.W.2d 516","2009 Minn. LEXIS 601","2009 WL 2959692"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":2057861,"court":"Supreme Court of Minnesota","court_citation_string":"Minn.","court_id":"minn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-09-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A08-1445","docket_id":2571412,"judge":"Anderson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T08:29:03.988548Z","date_created":"2015-10-14T00:37:19.598854Z","score":{"bm25":56.821545}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9540654,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T06:38:35.633331Z","date_created":"2023-08-07T16:18:36.690991Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":true,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION\nPER CURIAM.\nThe Honorable Timothy Blakely, a judge in the First Judicial District, challenges the recommendation of the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards (“Board”) that he be removed from office as a result of his actions in negotiating and obtaining *518a substantial legal fee reduction from his personal attorney while contemporaneousl","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[1294898,1603993,1628151,1706470,1879722,2063200,2171066],"download_url":null,"id":2057861,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T16:39:54.892335Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:12:12.916412Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":true,"sha1":"930e3319c8abc4ed35f32b434856661409f9236c","snippet":"\n772 N.W.2d 516 (2009)\nINQUIRY INTO the CONDUCT OF The Honorable Timothy BLAKELY.\nNo. A08-1445.\nSupreme Court of Minnesota.\nSeptember 17, 2009.\n*517 Douglas A. Kelley, Steven E. Wolter, Kelley & Wolter, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Board on Judicial Standards.\nMartin A. Cole, Director, Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibilit","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2057861,9540654,9540655],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2711535/in-re-complaint-as-to-the-conduct-of-carini/","attorney":"Lee S. Werdell, Bend, argued the cause and filed the briefs for the accused., Stacy J. Hankin, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Tigard, argued the cause and filed the brief for the Oregon State Bar.","caseName":"In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Carini","caseNameFull":"In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of PETER CARINI, Accused","citation":["354 Or. 47","308 P.3d 197","2013 WL 4185547","2013 Ore. LEXIS 611"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":2711535,"court":"Oregon Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Or.","court_id":"or","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-08-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"OSB 10125; SC S060708","docket_id":331966,"judge":"Per Curiam","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T14:08:32.757507Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T08:34:16.137903Z","score":{"bm25":54.640278}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2427042],"download_url":"http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S060708.pdf","id":2711535,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2013/08/15/in_re_carini.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T22:20:23.849510Z","date_created":"2014-08-05T20:08:35.526221Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"1d84ecdb6ba059cbc853e6b65b5951e51baa1d46","snippet":"\n\n\n \n   *48\n   \n  PER CURIAM\n \n\n  In this attorney discipline proceeding, the Bar charged the accused with violating Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 8.4(a)(4), which prohibits engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.\n  \n   1\n  \n  The trial pan","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2711535],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2711523/in-re-complaint-as-to-the-conduct-of-phinney/","attorney":"W. Scott Phinney, Tualatin, argued the cause and filed the brief pro se., Stacy J. Hankin, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Oregon State Bar, Tigard, argued the cause and filed the brief for the Oregon State Bar.","caseName":"In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Phinney","caseNameFull":"In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of W. SCOTT PHINNEY, OSB #823710, Accused","citation":["354 Or. 329","311 P.3d 517","2013 WL 5497234","2013 Ore. LEXIS 788"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":2711523,"court":"Oregon Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Or.","court_id":"or","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-10-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"OSB 10-68; SC S060529","docket_id":331898,"judge":"Per Curiam","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T14:08:31.262750Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T08:34:14.976094Z","score":{"bm25":54.516975}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S060529.pdf","id":2711523,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2013/10/03/in_re_phinney.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T22:20:22.548798Z","date_created":"2014-08-05T20:08:29.677398Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2064047a146029958ab78be0c7320ffd8c6a1523","snippet":"\n\n\n \n   *330\n   \n  PER CURIAM\n \n\n  In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, the Bar alleged that the accused, who admitted taking substantial funds from the Yale Alumni Association of Oregon, violated Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 8.4(a)(2), which prohibits criminal conduct that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s honesty ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2711523],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4316085/in-re-complaint-as-to-the-conduct-of-sanai/","attorney":"Fredric Sanai, Lake Oswego, argued the cause and filed the briefs for the accused., Kellie F. Johnson, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Tigard, argued the cause and Susan Roedl Cournoyer, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, filed the brief on behalf of the Oregon State Bar.","caseName":"In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Sanai","caseNameFull":"In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of FREDRIC SANAI, OSB #981372, Accused","citation":["360 Or. 497","383 P.3d 821","2016 Ore. LEXIS 686"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":4316085,"court":"Oregon Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Or.","court_id":"or","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-10-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"OSB 13100; SC S063514","docket_id":4483180,"judge":"Per Curiam","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:10:33.257003Z","date_created":"2016-10-27T15:47:03.515729Z","score":{"bm25":54.186863}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[108100,111012,111728,112566,118332,145633,834945,835195,835996,836200,836268,836502,836592,1113135,1188933,1224859,1280783,3211501],"download_url":"http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S063514.pdf","id":4093346,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2016/10/27/in_re_sanai.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T13:53:33.189862Z","date_created":"2016-10-27T15:47:03.522495Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"75d2291a80418e6d61b3a520c5b111a8ac1b8ccd","snippet":"\n\n\n  PER CURIAM\n \n\n  The accused is disbarred, effective 60 days from the date of this decision.\n \n\n \n   *499\n   \n  PER CURIAM\n \n\n  This is a reciprocal discipline review proceeding conducted under Oregon State Bar Rules of Procedure (BR) Title 10 and BR 3.5. Fredric Sanai (the accused)","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4093346],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1294898/in-re-conduct-of-ginsberg/","attorney":"Douglas A. Kelley, Steven Eugene Wol-ter, Douglas A. Kelley, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Bd. on Judicial Standards, relator/appellant., Mark W. Gehan, Collins, Buckley, Saun-try & Haugh, P.L.L.P., St. Paul, MN, for Harvey C. Ginsberg, respondent., Kenneth L. Jorgensen, Director, Timothy M. Burke, Senior Asst. Director, Julie E. Bennett, Asst. Director, St. Paul, MN, for Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, respondent.","caseName":"In Re Conduct of Ginsberg","caseNameFull":"Inquiry Into the CONDUCT OF the Honorable Harvey C. GINSBERG","citation":["690 N.W.2d 539","2004 Minn. LEXIS 773","2004 WL 3017233"],"citeCount":12,"cluster_id":1294898,"court":"Supreme Court of Minnesota","court_citation_string":"Minn.","court_id":"minn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2004-12-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A03-1336","docket_id":1571165,"judge":"Blatz","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T02:57:35.103940Z","date_created":"2015-10-14T17:49:29.779569Z","score":{"bm25":54.028946}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1603993,1674830,1733692,1850513,1852353,1855122,1879722,1893881,1972014,1983674,2003024,2051352,2063200,2171066,2171180,2175997,2205900],"download_url":null,"id":1294898,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T06:48:41.185288Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T05:22:58.711180Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":true,"sha1":"1240177f63c7af4c48074856601c94be1dd1a741","snippet":"\n690 N.W.2d 539 (2004)\nInquiry into the CONDUCT OF the Honorable Harvey C. GINSBERG.\nNo. A03-1336.\nSupreme Court of Minnesota.\nDecember 27, 2004.\n*541 Douglas A. Kelley, Steven Eugene Wolter, Douglas A. Kelley, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for Bd. on Judicial Standards, relator/appellant.\nMark W. Gehan, Collins, Buckley, Sauntry & Ha","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1294898],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/835670/in-re-conduct-of-tichenor/","attorney":"Marc D. Blackman, Ranson Blackman, LLP, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for the accused. With him on the briefs was Kendra M. Matthews., Mary Anne Cooper, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Lake Oswego, argued the cause and filed the brief for the Oregon State Bar., Robert W. Hermann, Hillsboro, filed the brief for amicus curiae Oregon District Attorneys’ Association.","caseName":"In Re Conduct of Tichenor","caseNameFull":"In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of CARROLL J. TICHENOR, Accused","citation":["129 P.3d 690","340 Or. 108","2006 Ore. LEXIS 101"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":835670,"court":"Oregon Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Or.","court_id":"or","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2006-02-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"OSB 03-33; SC S52239","docket_id":233461,"judge":"Gillette, Durham, Riggs, De Muniz, Balmer, Kistler","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T00:46:12.066750Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T07:46:03.218011Z","score":{"bm25":53.07544}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[836148,1150994,1245537,2632629,2633432,3838315],"download_url":"http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S52239.htm","id":835670,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2006/02/16/in_re_tichenor_2.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T16:16:19.097911Z","date_created":"2013-03-01T21:11:51.112036Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"834aedbc22129fb7492e58cf829c66bb0182b2fc","snippet":"\n129 P.3d 690 (2006)\n340 Or. 108\nIn re Complaint as to the CONDUCT OF Carroll J. TICHENOR, Accused.\n(OSB 03-33; SC S52239).\nSupreme Court of Oregon.\nArgued and Submitted September 7, 2005.\nDecided February 16, 2006.\nMarc D. Blackman, Ranson Blackman, LLP, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for the accused. With him on the","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[5477,5479,5502],"panel_names":["Robert D. Durham","W. Michael Gillette","R. William Riggs"],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[835670],"source":"LCU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}