Gary M. Bullock Publicly Reprimanded for Rule Violations

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON In re: the Conduct of ) ) GARY M. BULLOCK, Bar No. 660229 ) Case Nos. 22-146 and 23-132 ) Respondent. )

Counsel for the Bar: Eric J. Collins Counsel for the Respondent: Nellie Q. Barnard Disciplinary Board: None Disposition: Violation of RPC 1.6(a) and RPC 3.4(c). Stipulation for Discipline. Public reprimand. Effective Date of Order: February 19, 2025 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE This matter having been heard upon the Stipulation for Discipline entered into by Gary

1. Bullock and the Oregon State Bar, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation between the parties is approved, and Gary M. Bullock is publicly reprimanded for violation of RPC 1.6(a) and RPC 3.4(c). DATED this 19th day of February 2025. /s/ Mark A. Turner Mark A. Turner Adjudicator, Disciplinary Board STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE Gary M. Bullock, attorney at law (Respondent), and the Oregon State Bar (Bar) hereby stipulate to the following matters pursuant to Bar Rule of Procedure 3.6(3).

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.

Respondent was admitted by the Oregon Supreme Court to the practice of law in Oregon on September 16, 1966, and has been a member of the Bar continuously since that time, having his office and place of business in Multnomah County, Oregon.

Respondent enters into this Stipulation for Discipline freely, voluntarily, and with the advice of counsel. This Stipulation for Discipline is made under the restrictions of Bar Rule of Procedure 3.6(8).

On September 14, 2024, the State Professional Responsibility Board (SPRB) authorized formal disciplinary proceedings against Respondent for an alleged violation of RPC 1.6(a) of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. On October 9, 2024, the SPRB authorized formal disciplinary proceedings against Respondent for an alleged violation of RPC 3.4(c) of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct and authorized consolidation of the two matters for prosecution. The parties intend that this stipulation set forth all relevant facts, violations and the agreed-upon sanction as a final disposition of this proceeding. Case No. 22-146 Facts

In 2020, Respondent’s law firm filed a lawsuit against a former client and her intimate partner (defendants) in Multnomah County Circuit Court for failure to pay the outstanding balance of the former client’s legal bill (breach of contract litigation). The defendants proceeded pro se.

During the breach of contract litigation, a judge ordered Respondent’s firm to produce the former client’s file to the defendants within a few days. Respondent and his wife, the firm’s office manager, obtained boxes of documents from a storage facility to be copied for the production. While reviewing the contents of one box, Respondent inadvertently failed to find

and remove documents from all unrelated client matters that had been misfiled in the former client’s file. Copies were subsequently made and produced to the defendants.

After receiving the production, defendants informed Respondent that the production contained copies of documents from 25 unrelated client matters. During further communication, defendants said they could notify those clients that Respondent had disclosed their confidential client material. Respondent’s firm promptly requested that the defendants destroy the inadvertently produced documents, but the defendants did not do so. Instead, Respondent’s firm obtained said documents several weeks later. Violations

Respondent admits that he violated RPC 1.6(a) by mistakenly revealing information related to the representation of numerous clients of his law firm. Case No. 23-132 Facts

In August of 2022, Respondent’s law firm filed a lawsuit against a former client in relation to a fee dispute (fee litigation). The former client retained counsel who moved for a protective order in the fee litigation regarding the use of the former client’s identifying information. The former client had changed her name and social security number and had moved residences several times to avoid an abusive ex-boyfriend, and the former client did not want her prior identifying information disclosed in public records.

On September 9, 2022, a Multnomah County Circuit Court judge signed an Order Prohibiting Disclosure of Personal Identification Information Pursuant to UTCR 2.100, ORS 192.355, and ORS 192.368 (protective order), which was entered the same day. The protective order listed several protective actions that needed to occur to protect the former client’s name and other identifying information. That included a provision that stated: “[Former client’s] Confidential Information, including her social security number, maiden/former name, birth date, contact information and any other personal identification information, shall not be placed in the public record.”

In November of 2022, the former client filed a complaint with the Bar regarding Respondent’s conduct related to the fee litigation. In May of 2023, while the protective order remained in effect in the litigation, Respondent provided a response to the Bar that included unredacted documents showing the former name and other identifying information of the complainant. In that response, Respondent acknowledged his understanding that Bar complaint materials are subject to the Oregon Public Records Law.

Subsequently, after the Bar received notice of the protective order from the former client’s counsel, the Bar asked Respondent to address his apparent violation of the protective order based on the submission to the Bar described in paragraph 11.

In June 2023, Respondent provided a response to the Bar in which he apologized and characterized as a mistake the inclusion of his former client’s identifying information in his response to the Bar. However, Respondent also attached an unredacted retainer agreement containing the former client’s personal identifying information – including her social security number and date of birth. The protective order remained in effect at that time. Respondent subsequently provided redacted copies of his attachments to the Bar. Violations

Respondent admits that he violated RPC 3.4(c) by submitting documents to the Bar containing the former client’s personal identifying information in violation of the protective order. Sanction

Respondent 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 (ABA Standards). The ABA Standards require that Respondent’s conduct be analyzed by considering the following factors: (1) the ethical duty violated; (2) the attorney’s mental state; (3) the actual or potential injury; and (4) the existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

1. Duty Violated. Regarding Case No. 22-146, Respondent violated his duty to preserve client confidences. ABA Standard 4.2. The ABA Standards presume that

the most important ethical duties are those to which an attorney owes a client. ABA Standards at 5. Regarding Case No. 23-132, Respondent violated his duty to the legal system to comply with applicable court orders. ABA Standard 6.2.

1. Mental State. The most culpable mental state is that of “intent,” when the lawyer
   acts with the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result. ABA Standards at 9. “Knowledge” is the conscious awareness of the nature or attendant circumstances of the conduct but without the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result. Id. “Negligence” is the failure to be aware of a substantial risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow and which deviates from the standard of care that a reasonable lawyer would exercise in the situation. Id. Regarding Case No. 22-146, Respondent acted negligently by mistakenly disclosing information related to the representation of numerous clients. Regarding Case No. 23-132, Respondent acted knowingly, in part, when he submitted to the Bar documents containing his former client’s personally identifying information while aware of the protective order; he acted negligently, in part, by failing to redact some of that information.

2. Injury. Injury can be either actual or potential under the ABA Standards.
   In re Williams, 314 Or 530, 547, 840 P2d 1280 (1992). Regarding Case No. 22-146, there was the potential for injury to the clients whose information was mistakenly disclosed as Respondent lost control of the information for some time. Regarding Case No. 23-132, Respondent’s former client suffered injury in the form of frustration and anxiety after Respondent on more than one occasion disclosed her personally identifying information to the Bar, a public records agency. See In re Cohen, 330 Or 489, 496, 8 P3d 953 (2000); In re Schaffner, 325 Or 421, 426-27, 939 P2d 39 (1997) (both holding that client anxiety and frustration can constitute actual injury under the ABA Standards). As an officer of the court, Respondent caused potential injury to the public trust by failing to abide by the court’s protective order.

3. Aggravating Circumstances. Aggravating circumstances include:

4. Vulnerability of victim. ABA Standard 9.22(h). Respondent’s former client
   in Case No. 23-132 was a victim of abuse, and a judge determined that she was sufficiently vulnerable to warrant entry of the protective order.

5. Substantial experience in the practice of law. ABA Standard 9.22(i).
   Respondent has practiced law since 1966.

6. Mitigating Circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include:

7. Absence of a prior record of discipline. ABA Standard 9.32(a).

8. Absence of a dishonest or selfish motive. ABA Standard 9.32(b).

9. Timely good faith effort to make restitution or to rectify consequences of
   misconduct. ABA Standard 9.32(d). In Case No. 22-146, Respondent’s firm promptly took steps to seek destruction of the mistakenly disclosed client information and ultimately retrieved it.

10. Full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude
    toward proceedings. ABA Standard 9.32(e).

11. Character or reputation. Former clients of Respondent have attested to his
    good character and appreciation for his work on their behalf.

12. Remorse. ABA Standard 9.32(l). Respondent expressed remorse for his
    actions.

Under the ABA Standards, a public reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently reveals information relating to representation of a client not otherwise lawfully permitted to be disclosed and this disclosure causes injury or potential injury to a client. ABA Standard 4.23. Under the ABA Standards, a public reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently fails to comply with a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a client or other party. ABA Standard 6.23.

Oregon cases support the imposition of a public reprimand in this case. Lawyers who have violated RPC 1.6(a), or the predecessor rule, have been reprimanded. See In re Scannell, 8 DB Rptr 99 (1994) (attorney reprimanded after negligently revealing to opposing counsel and the court a letter that included legal analysis and strategy, without the client’s consent); see also In re Dennis, 33 DB Rptr 61 (2019) (lawyer reprimanded for disclosing to the court that his client, a professional fiduciary, had paid herself without court approval). Lawyers found in violation of RPC 3.4(c), or the predecessor rule, have also been reprimanded. See In re Rubin, 25 DB Rptr 13 (2011) (attorney reprimanded for violating a protective order issued in one proceeding when he filed a motion in another proceeding describing information that the protective order deemed confidential. The attorney’s mental state was determined to be partially knowing and partially negligent); see also In re Dodge, 22 DB Rptr 271 (2008) (attorney disclosed to a Bureau of Labor and Industries investigator the existence and terms of a confidential mediation settlement offer his client’s employer had extended in a workers’ compensation mediation).

Consistent with the ABA Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that Respondent shall be publicly reprimanded for violation of RPC 1.6(a) and RPC 3.4(c).

Respondent acknowledges that he is subject to the Ethics School requirement set forth in BR 6.4 and that a failure to complete the requirement timely under that rule may result in his suspension or the denial of his reinstatement. This requirement is in addition to any other provision of this agreement that requires Respondent to attend continuing legal education (CLE) courses.

Respondent represents that, in addition to Oregon, he also is admitted to practice law in the jurisdictions listed in this paragraph, whether his current status is active, inactive, or suspended, and he acknowledges that the Bar will be informing these jurisdictions of the final disposition of this proceeding. Other jurisdictions in which Respondent is admitted: Washington, California, Idaho.

Approval of this Stipulation for Discipline as to substance was given by the SPRB on September 14, 2024, and October 19, 2024. Approval as to form by Disciplinary Counsel is evidenced below. The parties agree the stipulation is to be submitted to the Adjudicator on behalf of the Disciplinary Board for consideration pursuant to the terms of BR 3.6. EXECUTED this 14th day of February 2025. /s/ Gary M. Bullock Gary M. Bullock, OSB No. 660229 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: /s/ Nellie Q. Barnard Nellie Q. Barnard, OSB No. 122775 EXECUTED this 18th day of February 2025. OREGON STATE BAR By:/s/ Eric J. Collins Eric J. Collins, OSB No. 122997 Assistant Disciplinary Counsel