In re Complaint as to the Conduct of JAMES R. KIRCHOFF OSB No. 081879, Accused.
and submitted May 11, 2017
review of the decision of a trial panel of the Disciplinary
Board, dated June 14, 2016.
Robert Steringer, Harrang Long Gary Rudnick PC, Portland,
argued the cause and fled the briefs for the Accused.
R. Cournoyer, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Tigard, argued
the cause and fled the brief for the Oregon Stat e Ba r.
Balmer, Chief Justice, and Kistler, Walters, Nakamoto, Flynn
and Duncan, Justices, and Linder, Senior Justice pro tempore.
Or. 713] Case Summary:
Oregon State Bar brought a disciplinary action against the
accused lawyer, alleging four violations of the Rules of
Professional Conduct, arising out his submission of a
falsifed document to a trial court and to the Bar. A trial
panel of the Disciplinary Board found that the accused had
committed all of the charged violations and concluded that
the accused should be suspended from the practice of law for
two years. The accused lawyer sought review in the Supreme
Court, arguing that the Bar had failed to prove the charged
violations by clear and convincing evidence. He did not
challenge the sanction.
de novo review, the court concluded that there was
clear and convincing evidence that the accused committed the
charged violations of the disciplinary rules. Because neither
party challenged the appropriateness of the sanction, the
court also concluded that a two-year suspension was
accused is suspended from the practice of law for two years,
commencing 60 days from the date of this decision.
Or. 714] PER CURIAM.
lawyer disciplinary proceeding, the Oregon State Bar charged
James R. Kirchoff (the accused) with multiple violations of
the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), based on his
submission of false evidence to a tribunal. A trial panel of
the Disciplinary Board conducted a hearing, found that the
accused had violated those rules, and determined that the
appropriate sanction was suspension from the practice of law
for a period of two years. The accused seeks review of the
trial panel's finding that he committed the alleged
violations. We review the trial panel's decision de
novo. ORS 9.536(2); Bar Rule of Procedure (BR) 10.6. The
Bar has the burden of establishing misconduct by clear and
convincing evidence. BR 5.2. Clear and convincing evidence is
evidence establishing that "the truth of the facts
asserted is highly probable." In re Ellis I
Rosenbaum.356 Or. 691, 693, 344 P.3d 425 (2015). For
the reasons that follow, we agree with the trial panel that