In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Hartfield

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• court is free to circumscribe extent of its review due to absence of briefing or argumentation on an issue
• although accused lawyer began representing client in 2003, before effective date of Rules of Professional Conduct, misconduct at issue occurred after that date, so new rules applied
• although accused lawyer began representing client in 2003, before effective date of Rules of Professional Conduct, misconduct at issue occurred after that date, so new rules applied
• when accused fails to file briefs, “ORAP 11.25(3) entitles the Bar * * * to elect to submit a letter requesting submission of the case to the court without briefing or oral argument”
• “ORAP 11.25(3) entitles the Bar, in cases like the present one [in which the accused fails to submit an opening brief], to elect to submit a letter requesting submission of the case to the court without briefing or oral argument”
• “ ‘[Olrdinarily we will consider the issues for our review to be those framed by the parties’ briefs and arguments.’ ” (quoting 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)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).