Jack Kinsey 60-Day Suspension - Oregon Ethics Violations

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON In re: the Conduct of ) ) JACK KINSEY, Bar No. 165420 ) Case Nos. 25-53 and 25-41 ) Respondent. )

Counsel for the Bar: Eric J. Collins Counsel for the Respondent: None Disciplinary Board: None Disposition: Violation of RPC 1.3, RPC 1.4(a), RPC 1.4(b), RPC 1.15-1(d), RPC 1.16(a)(3), and RPC 8.4(a)(4). Stipulation for Discipline. 60-day suspension. Effective Date of Order: April 13, 2026 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE This matter having been heard upon the stipulation for discipline entered into by Respondent and the Oregon State Bar, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation between the parties is approved and Respondent is suspended for 60 days, effective April 13, 2026, for violation of RPC 1.3, RPC 1.4(a), RPC 1.4(b), RPC 1.15-1(d), RPC 1.16(a)(3), and RPC 8.4(a)(4). DATED this 27th day of March 2026. /s/ Mark A. Turner Mark A. Turner Adjudicator, Disciplinary Board STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE Jack Kinsey, 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 October 11, 2016, and has been a member of the Bar continuously since that time. His office and place of business is in Multnomah County, Oregon.

Respondent enters into this stipulation for discipline freely, voluntarily, and with the opportunity to seek advice from counsel. This stipulation for discipline is made under the restrictions of Bar Rule of Procedure 3.6(8).

On October 25, 2025, the State Professional Responsibility Board (SPRB) authorized formal disciplinary proceedings against Respondent for alleged violations of RPC 1.3, RPC 1.4(a), RPC 1.4(b), and RPC 1.15-1(d) of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. On December 6, 2025, the State Professional Responsibility Board (SPRB) authorized formal disciplinary proceedings against Respondent for alleged violations of RPC 1.16(a)(3) and RPC 8.4(a)(4) of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. The parties intend that this stipulation set forth all relevant facts, violations and the agreed-upon sanction as a final disposition of these proceedings. Facts NR Matter - Case No. 25-53

In 2019, client NR was convicted of two felony drug crimes and was sentenced to serve a prison term. In 2022, while the matter was on appeal, counsel for the State of Oregon agreed to a settlement in which the parties would jointly seek to vacate the judgment of conviction and dismiss the case against NR. Subsequently, in June and August 2022, a state circuit court judge signed orders to that effect. In mid-September 2022, NR retained Respondent to seek compensation on his behalf pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 1584, which became the Oregon Justice for Exonerees Act, an act to provide compensation to those wrongfully convicted. Pursuant to SB 1584, a person seeking compensation for a wrongful conviction must file a petition in the form of a civil action in state court within two years of the date of dismissal of the relevant criminal charges.

In the fall of 2022, Respondent sent notice of an SB 1584 petition to the state on behalf of NR and began drafting a demand letter. However, after mid-November 2022, and for a period of approximately 17 months thereafter, Respondent conducted no further substantive work on the matter. During that period, NR repeatedly tried to obtain updates regarding the status of his matter, but Respondent provided NR no substantive information. Respondent did not inform NR about issues that impacted Respondent's ability to work on NR's matter, including the departure of Respondent's law partner in 2023 and Respondent's decision in late 2023 to close his law firm and find new employment. In late April 2024, Respondent informed NR that Respondent was winding up his law firm and withdrawing from the representation and would provide NR with his file. When Respondent failed to provide the file, NR repeatedly tried to contact Respondent to obtain it. Respondent received those requests but did not provide his client with the file. NR then filed a complaint with the Bar's Client Assistance Office (CAO) in which he referenced his inability to receive his file from Respondent, and Respondent then provided NR electronic access to the file on June 9, 2024. Violations

Respondent admits that, by performing no substantive work on NR's matter for approximately 17 months, he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of RPC 1.3. Respondent further admits that he failed to respond substantively to NR's reasonable requests for information for significant periods of time and failed to explain to NR issues impacting Respondent's ability to timely work on NR's matter so that NR could make informed decisions regarding the representation, such as whether to seek new counsel, in violation of RPC 1.4(a) and RPC 1.4(b). Respondent also admits that his failure to promptly provide NR with his file violated RPC 1.15-1(d). OSB Matter - Case No. 25-41

In February 2022, client AM retained Respondent regarding a temporary child custody matter. In May 2023, while the case remained open, AM contacted the judicial assistant for the judge presiding over the case and informed her that Respondent no longer represented him. That judicial assistant then emailed Respondent and requested that he file a motion and order to withdraw; he did not do so. Thereafter, the judicial assistant corresponded directly with the parties, both of whom proceeded pro se, without including Respondent in those communications. In mid-February 2024, the judicial assistant emailed Respondent again, stating that he was still counsel of record for AM in the matter. The judicial assistant reiterated her request that Respondent file a motion and order to withdraw, but he did not do so.

Subsequently, the court set a hearing in the matter for January 2, 2025, and the parties worked with Multnomah County's Legal Resource Center (LRC), which assists pro se parties, regarding settlement. In December 2024, the parties reached an agreement, which included dismissing the custody case and canceling the pending hearing. However, LRC staff informed the parties that the LRC could not assist them in obtaining the necessary documents to finalize the case until Respondent removed himself as counsel of record in the matter. On December 22, 2024, the judicial assistant emailed Respondent regarding the withdrawal issue, requesting confirmation that Respondent had withdrawn or a status update. She also attempted unsuccessfully to reach Respondent by telephone regarding the issue. On December 23, 2024, Respondent filed a motion to withdraw, with a supporting declaration, and a proposed order; however, the next day the court notified Respondent by email that his filing failed to include a certificate of readiness and was therefore rejected. Respondent took no further action. On January 2, 2025, the court held a hearing in the custody matter. The pro se parties appeared but Respondent did not. Court staff made multiple attempts to reach Respondent without success. AM requested that the court remove Respondent as his counsel of record so the parties could move forward with the settlement agreement. The court then issued an order dismissing Respondent from further representation of AM and removing Respondent as counsel of record in the matter. Violations

Respondent admits that, by failing to seek permission to withdraw from the representation of AM for approximately 18 months after AM discharged him, and for failing to confirm that the motion to withdraw he filed in late December 2024 was accepted, he violated RPC 1.16(a)(3). Respondent also admits that he engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of RPC 8.4(a)(4) when he failed to properly withdraw from the representation of AM and thereby burdened the court with additional unnecessary work and negatively impacted the substantive interests of the parties, who had agreed upon a resolution but could not memorialize their agreement while Respondent was still attorney of record. 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. In the NR matter, Respondent violated his duty of diligence, ABA
   Standard 4.4, by neglecting the legal matter, failing to respond to his client's requests for information, and failing to keep his client apprised of events that impacted Respondent's ability to handle the matter. Also in the NR matter, Respondent violated his duty to preserve client property when he improperly delayed providing client file materials. ABA Standard 4.1. In the OSB matter, Respondent violated his duty owed as a professional by failing to timely and properly withdraw from his client matter. ABA Standard 7.0. Respondent also violated his duty to abide by the legal rules of procedure that affect the administration of justice. ABA Standard 6.0.

2. Mental State. "Intent" is 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 of a lawyer to heed a substantial risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow, which failure is a deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable lawyer would exercise in the situation. Id. As to Respondent's neglect and failure to communicate in the NR matter, Respondent acted knowingly. Considering NR's numerous requests for information, Respondent was aware that he was not making substantive progress on the matter and not providing his client with substantive updates. Respondent's failure to provide NR with his file materials was initially negligent but became knowing as time progressed. In the OSB matter, Respondent also acted with a knowing mental state. For a substantial period of time, Respondent was aware that his client had discharged him, but he still failed to withdraw. Respondent acted with a negligent mental state when he failed to properly withdraw, thus necessitating a hearing that burdened the court and the pro se parties.

3. Injury. For the purposes of determining an appropriate disciplinary sanction, the
   trial panel may take into account both actual and potential injury. ABA Standards at 6; In re Keller, 369 Or 410, 417, 506 P3d 1101 (2022). In the NR matter, Respondent's conduct caused actual injury to the client in the form of frustration and anxiety. See In re Cohen, 330 Or 489, 496, 8 P3d 953 (2000) (client anxiety and frustration can constitute actual injury under the ABA Standards), citing In re Schaffner, 325 Or 421, 426-27, 939 P2d 39 (1997). Respondent's failure to pursue his client's claim for compensation for wrongful conviction caused, at minimum, potential injury.

Similarly, in the OSB matter, Respondent's conduct caused his client anxiety and frustration and thus actual injury. Respondent's failure to withdraw created at least potential injury to AM as it was a contributing factor to the lack of resolution in the underlying matter.

1. Aggravating Circumstances. Aggravating circumstances include:

2. A pattern of misconduct. ABA Standard 9.22(c). "[A] pattern of misconduct
   does not necessarily require proof of a prior sanction. Rather, that aggravating factor bears on whether the violation is a one-time mistake, which may call for a lesser sanction, or part of a larger pattern, which may reflect a more serious ethical problem." In re Bertoni, 363 Or 614, 644, 426 P3d 64 (2018). Respondent's lack of diligence in the NR and OSB matters evidenced a larger pattern related to his inability to manage difficult circumstances regarding a high case volume, his law partner's departure, health issues, and a poorly managed transition from his solo law firm.

3. Multiple offenses. ABA Standard 9.22(d).

4. Mitigating Circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include:

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

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

7. Cooperative attitude toward proceedings. ABA Standard 9.32(e).
   Respondent cooperated with the Bar investigation and acknowledged that his conduct fell short of his ethical obligations.

8. Remorse. ABA Standard 9.32(l). Respondent has expressed remorse for his
   conduct.

Under the ABA Standards, suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client. ABA Standard 4.42(a). Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows or should know that he is dealing improperly with client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client. ABA Standard 4.12. Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. ABA Standard 7.2.

A significant suspension is warranted under Oregon case law for lawyers who knowingly neglect a legal matter or fail to keep clients informed over significant periods of time. In the case

of In re Redden, 342 Or 393, 401-402, 153 P3d 113 (2007), the Oregon Supreme Court noted that attorneys who knowingly neglect a client's legal matter are generally sanctioned with 60-day suspensions. See also, In re LaBahn, 335 Or 357, 67 P3d 381 (2003) (attorney suspended for 60 days for knowing neglect of a client matter and failure to communicate). The Oregon Supreme Court has affirmed imposing a reprimand as the presumptive sanction for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice done with a negligent mental state. In re Carini, 354 Or 47, 59-60, 308 P3d 197 (2013) (suspending the lawyer for 30 days when the lawyer had been previously sanctioned for the same conduct). For multiple violations, the ABA Standards recommend that the ultimate sanction should be consistent with the most serious instance of misconduct but generally should be greater. ABA Standards at 7. Here, considering that the factors in mitigation outweigh those in aggravation, a sanction consistent with the most serious instance of misconduct - the violations related to neglect and failure to communicate - is sufficient and justified.

Consistent with the ABA Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that Respondent shall be suspended for 60 days for violation of RPC 1.3, RPC 1.4(a), RPC 1.4(b), RPC 1.15-1(d), RPC 1.16(a)(3), and RPC 8.4(a)(4), the sanction to be effective on April 13, 2026.

Respondent acknowledges that he has certain duties and responsibilities under the Rules of Professional Conduct and BR 6.3 to immediately take all reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to his clients during the term of his suspension. Respondent represents that he has been employed by Liberty Mutual since 2024 and has no active clients or other legal matters other than those involving Liberty Mutual.

Respondent acknowledges that reinstatement is not automatic on expiration of the period of suspension. He is required to comply with the applicable provisions of Title 8 of the Bar Rules of Procedure. Respondent also acknowledges that he cannot hold himself out as an active member of the Bar or provide legal services or advice until he is notified that his license to practice has been reinstated.

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: None.

Approval of this stipulation for discipline as to substance was given by the SPRB on December 6, 2025. 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 25th day of March 2026. /s/ Jack Kinsey Jack Kinsey, OSB No. 165420 EXECUTED this 25th day of March 2026. OREGON STATE BAR By: /s/ Eric J. Collins Eric J. Collins, OSB No. 122997 Assistant Disciplinary Counsel