In Kind

An Oregon sanction has resulted in a public censure by the New York Appellate Division for the Second judicial Department

The respondent was admitted to the Oregon Bar in 1977 and maintains his law office and place of business in Oregon. In or about 1999, the respondent represented a husband and wife individually, as well as their construction company (hereinafter collectively the clients). Thereafter, the respondent and the clients entered into a fee arrangement wherein the clients would pay the respondent’s legal fees by performing certain construction projects on properties that the respondent owned. In or about July 2015, the respondent emailed a letter to the clients regarding their agreement with the subject line “In[-]Kind Payments for Legal Services.” The letter stated in part:

“We have now agreed that you will pay some or all of the amounts you owe, or will owe in the future, to The Duboff Law Group with construction services including but not limited to carpentry, electrical, plumbing, painting, and the like, instead of by paying with money.”

The letter then explained:

“Oregon ethical rules consider such an in[-]kind payment arrangement to be a business transaction between the law firm and [the] client. The Du[b]off Law Group will not be representing you in this business transaction. “The Duboff Law Group will continue to calculate its billings based on its then-standard hourly rate and will credit you for the in[-]kind payments based on your rates for the work you perform. You will provide this firm with a 1099 form for the value of these in[-]kind payments.”

This relationship continued until 2017, when the respondent became dissatisfied with the work performed by the clients, terminated his legal representation of the clients, and filed a lawsuit against the clients alleging, inter alia, negligence, fraud, and breach of contract. The clients sent a letter to the Bar Client’s Assistance Office (hereinafter the Bar) describing their interactions with the respondent. After the Bar’s investigation concluded, the Bar charged the respondent with one violation of RPC rule 1.8(a), and a trial panel was convened. The panel found that the respondent and the clients had, in fact, entered into a “business transaction” and that the respondent had violated RPC rule 1.8(a).

The Oregon Supreme Court imposed a public reprimand.

Here

Based on the admitted misconduct underlying the discipline imposed by the order of the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, dated February 16, 2023, we find that the imposition of reciprocal discipline is warranted, and conclude that the respondent should be publicly censur

(Mike Frisch)