Cite as In re Arnold, 22 DB Rptr 13 (2008)

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF OREGON
In re:

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Complaint as to the Conduct of

C. MICHAEL ARNOLD,
Accused.

Case No. 07-123

Counsel for the Bar:

Stacy J. Hankin

Counsel for the Accused:

Wayne Mackeson

Disciplinary Board:

None

Disposition:

Violation of RPC 8.4(a)(2). Stipulation for

Discipline. Public reprimand.

Effective Date of Order:

January 17, 2008

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE

This matter having been heard upon the Stipulation for Discipline entered into
by the Accused and the Oregon State Bar, and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation between the parties is approved
and the Accused is publicly reprimanded for violation of RPC 8.4(a)(2).
DATED this 17th day of January 2008.
/s/ Susan G. Bischoff
Susan G. Bischoff, Esq.
State Disciplinary Board Chairperson
/s/ Gregory E. Skillman
Gregory E. Skillman, Esq., Region 2
Disciplinary Board Chairperson

13

Cite as In re Arnold, 22 DB Rptr 13 (2008)

STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE
C. Michael Arnold, attorney at law (hereinafter Accused), and the Oregon
State Bar (hereinafter Bar) hereby stipulate to the following matters pursuant to
Oregon State Bar Rule of Procedure 3.6(c).
1.
The Bar was created and exists by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon
and is, and at all times mentioned herein was, authorized to carry out the provisions
of ORS Chapter 9, relating to the discipline of attorneys.
2.
The Accused was admitted by the Oregon Supreme Court to the practice of
law in Oregon on October 4, 2001, and has been a member of the Oregon State Bar
continuously since that time, having his office and place of business in Lane County,
Oregon.
3.
The Accused enters into this Stipulation for Discipline freely and voluntarily.
This Stipulation for Discipline is made under the restrictions of Bar Rule of
Procedure 3.6(h).
4.
On September 20, 2007, a Formal Complaint was filed against the Accused
pursuant to the authorization of the State Professional Responsibility Board
(hereinafter SPRB), alleging violation of RPC 8.4(a)(2). The parties intend that this
Stipulation for Discipline set forth all relevant facts, violations, and the agreed-upon
sanction as a final disposition of the proceeding.
Facts
5.
On January 23, 2007, Melanie Oakley (hereinafter Oakley) appeared at a
court hearing on a charge of driving under the influence of intoxicants. The Accused,
representing the City of Florence, was present at the hearing and learned that Oakley
was 18 years old. Oakley pled guilty to the charge and entered into a diversion
agreement.
6.
Thereafter, the Accused contacted Oakley, ostensibly for the purpose of
checking up on her, and suggested that they meet. On February 6, 2007, the Accused
drove Oakley to a restaurant and purchased two glasses of wine for her.

14

Cite as In re Arnold, 22 DB Rptr 13 (2008)

7.
ORS 471.410(2) prohibits anyone, other than a parent or guardian, from
selling, giving, or otherwise making available any alcoholic liquor to a person under
the age of 21. On May 25, 2007, the Accused pled guilty to violating ORS
471.410(2) as described in paragraph 6 herein.
Violations
8.
The Accused admits that, by engaging in the conduct described in paragraphs
5 through 7, he violated RPC 8.4(a)(2).
Sanction
9.
The Accused and the Bar agree that in fashioning an appropriate sanction in
this case, the Disciplinary Board should consider the ABA Standards for Imposing
Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter Standards). The Standards require that the Accuseds
conduct be analyzed by considering the following factors: (1) the ethical duty
violated, (2) the attorneys mental state, (3) the actual or potential injury, and (4) the
existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
a.

Duties violated. The Accused violated a duty he owed to the public not
to engage in criminal conduct. Standards, 5.0.

b.

Mental state. Intent is the conscious objective or purpose to

accomplish a particular result. Standards, p. 7. The Accused acted
intentionally.

c.

Injury. Underage drinking statutes are intended to protect minors from

the consequences of alcohol consumption. Oakley sustained actual
injury as a result of the Accuseds conduct. The prosecutors office also
sustained actual injury in that the Accuseds criminal conduct reflected
poorly on the office.

d.

Aggravating circumstances. The following aggravating circumstances

exist:

e.

1.

Vulnerability of victim. Standards, 9.22(h).

2.

Substantial experience in the practice of law. The Accused has

been a lawyer in Oregon since 2001. Standards, 9.22(i).

3.

Illegal conduct. Standards, 9.22(k).

Mitigating circumstances. The following mitigating circumstances exist:

1.

Absence of a prior disciplinary record. Standards, 9.32(a).

2.

Cooperative attitude toward the proceeding. Standards, 9.32(e).

15

Cite as In re Arnold, 22 DB Rptr 13 (2008)

3.

Character or reputation. The Accused has submitted letters from

lawyers attesting to his good character and reputation. Standards,
9.32(g).

4.

Imposition of other penalties or sanctions. The Accused pled

guilty to engaging in criminal conduct and paid a fine.
Standards, 9.32(l).

5.

Remorse. The Accused has expressed remorse for his conduct.

Standards, 9.32(m).
10.

Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in

certain criminal conduct that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyers fitness to
practice. Standards, 5.12.
11.
The Accused was not acting as a lawyer when he engaged in the criminal
conduct at issue here. Reprimands have been imposed on lawyers who have engaged
in misconduct in their personal lives, even when the misconduct also constitutes a
crime. In re Carpenter, 337 Or 226, 95 P3d 203 (2004) (reprimand imposed on
lawyer who created an Internet bulletin board account in the name of a local high
school teacher and posted a message purportedly written by the teacher which
suggested that the teacher had engaged in sexual relations with students); In re
Kumley, 335 Or 639, 75 P3d 432 (2003) (inactive lawyer who identified himself as
an attorney in forms he filled out as a legislative candidate was reprimanded for
committing crimes of knowingly making a false statement under election laws and
false swearing); In re Flannery, 334 Or 224, 47 P3d 891 (2002) (reprimand imposed
on deputy district attorney who committed a misdemeanor when he submitted a false
application for a driver license).
12.
Consistent with the Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that the
Accused shall be publicly reprimanded for violation of RPC 8.4(a)(2).
13.
This Stipulation for Discipline is subject to review by Disciplinary Counsel of
the Oregon State Bar and to approval by the SPRB. If approved by the SPRB, the
parties agree the stipulation is to be submitted to the Disciplinary Board for
consideration pursuant to the terms of BR 3.6.

16

Cite as In re Arnold, 22 DB Rptr 13 (2008)

EXECUTED this 4th day of January 2008.
/s/ C. Michael Arnold
C. Michael Arnold
OSB No. 011873
EXECUTED this 9th day of January 2008.
OREGON STATE BAR
By: /s/ Stacy J. Hankin
Stacy J. Hankin
OSB No. 862028
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel

17