Attorney Hazlett Reprimanded for Excessive Fees and Staff Oversight Failures

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON In re: the Conduct of ) ) JAMIE HAZLETT, Bar No. 073572 ) Case No. 24-92 ) Respondent. )

Counsel for the Bar: Eric J. Collins Counsel for the Respondent: Arden J. Olson Disciplinary Board: None Disposition: Violation of RPC 1.5(a) and 5.3(a). Stipulation for Discipline. Public reprimand. Effective Date of Order: March 10, 2026 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE This matter having been heard upon the Stipulation for Discipline entered into by Jamie Hazlett (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 publicly reprimanded for violation of RPC 1.5(a) and RPC 5.3(a). DATED this 10th day of March 2026. /s/ Mark A. Turner Mark A. Turner Adjudicator, Disciplinary Board STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE Jamie Hazlett, 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 28, 2007, and has been a member of the Bar continuously since that time, having her office and place of business in Jackson 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 June 26, 2025, an Amended Formal Complaint was filed against Respondent pursuant to the authorization of the State Professional Responsibility Board (SPRB), alleging violation of RPC 1.5(a) and RPC 3.5(b) of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. On February 27, 2026, the SPRB authorized an additional violation of RPC 5.3(a). The parties agree that the violation of RPC 3.5(b) has been resolved separately from this stipulation. 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

In January 2020, Client signed a fee agreement with Respondent's law partner for representation in a dissolution case. Subsequently, in February 2022, Respondent took over as lead counsel for Client and became responsible for overseeing all billings related to the representation. In August 2022, Client filed a pro se motion seeking the removal of Respondent and her law partner. At the time, both were the client's attorneys of record in the case. The court granted Client's pro se motion as well as motions to withdraw filed by Respondent and her law partner. In November 2022, after the termination of the representation, Client received an invoice from Respondent's firm that included fees and charges for the following line items:

• 10/04/2022 - [Staff charge]: 'Telephone call: call with client re lien on
  house.' $30.

• 10/13/2022 - [Staff charge]: 'File Review - OJIN, discovery received/sent,
  calendar, assignments as needed: and send email re osb resolution.' $27.

• 10/24/2022 - [Staff charge]: 'Document drafting: Drafted letter to OR Bar.'
  $40.50.

• 10/26/2022 - [Staff charge]: 'Email review/reply: emailed letter to Oregon
  BAR.' $13.50. These line items related to communication about an attorney lien recorded against Client's home and other real property she owned as well as a letter signed by Respondent and sent to the Bar declining Client's request to participate in the Bar's Fee Dispute Resolution Program. Respondent did not review these charges before staff sent the invoice to Client. Violations

Respondent admits that the above-referenced charges sent to the client were improper as they were not for legal work conducted for the benefit of the client and thus were clearly excessive in violation of RPC 1.5(a). Respondent also admits that she violated RPC 5.3(a) by failing to adequately supervise the firm's staff or take reasonable efforts to ensure that the conduct of the firm's staff was compliant with Respondent's obligations as an attorney regarding Respondent's obligation not to charge a client a clearly excessive fee by billing for work that was of no benefit to the client. 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. Respondent violated her duty to the profession to refrain from
   charging excessive fees and her duty to supervise non-lawyer staff to ensure the staff complied with her ethical obligations regarding billing practices. ABA Standard 7.0.

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 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. Respondent acted with negligence. She should have known that law firm employees needed additional training regarding the impropriety of billing a client for matters related to a fee dispute and attorney lien.

3. Injury. Injury can be either actual or potential under the ABA Standards.
   In re Keller, 369 Or 410, 417, 506 P3d 1101 (2022). Respondent's conduct caused potential injury. Although the client did not pay the amounts she was improperly charged, she could have done so.

4. Aggravating Circumstances. Aggravating circumstances include:

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

6. Substantial experience in the practice of law. ABA Standard 9.22(i).
   Respondent has been licensed to practice law in Oregon since 2007.

7. Mitigating Circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include:

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

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

10. Cooperative attitude toward proceedings. ABA Standard 9.32(e).
    Under the ABA Standards, reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently 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 7.3.

A reprimand here is consistent with Oregon law. The Oregon Supreme Court has imposed a reprimand when a lawyer has charged an excessive fee as to a single client and the lawyer committed no other significant violations. In re Potts/Trammel/Hannon, 301 Or 57, 718 P2d 1363 (1986) (attorneys in probate proceeding each charged excessive fees and received reprimands); see also, In re Paulson, 335 Or 436, 71 P3d 60 (2003) (attorney reprimanded for charging an excessive fee when he billed a client for time spent responding to the client's Bar complaint).

In many cases, a reprimand has also resulted from a lawyer's failure to supervise staff. See, e.g., In re Nishioka, 23 DB Rptr 44 (2009) (public reprimand for failing to know about or approve all of his assistant's work, which included drafting and signing court documents); In re Idiart, 19 DB Rptr 316 (2005) (public reprimand for delegating to non-lawyer staff the task of sending direct mail solicitations to injury victims, without instructing or supervising staff about when such solicitations would violate the ethical rules); In re Taylor, 23 DB Rptr 151 (2009) (public reprimand for delegating to investigator the use of subpoenas, without adequate instruction or supervision, resulting in attorney obtaining and using improper school records of a juvenile).

Consistent with the ABA Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that Respondent shall be publicly reprimanded for violation of RPC 1.5(a) and RPC 5.3(a).

In addition, on or before May 1, 2026, Respondent shall pay to the Bar its reasonable and necessary costs in the amount of $383.40, incurred for the deposition of Respondent. Should Respondent fail to pay $383.40 in full by May 1, 2026, the Bar may thereafter, without further notice to her, obtain a judgment against Respondent for the unpaid balance, plus interest thereon at the legal rate to accrue from the date the judgment is signed until paid in full.

Respondent acknowledges that she 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 her suspension. The requirement to complete the Legal Ethics Best Practices CLE (Ethics School) 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, she also is admitted to practice law in the jurisdictions listed in this paragraph, whether her current status is active, inactive, or suspended, and she 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 February 27, 2026. 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 9th day of March 2026.

/s/ Jamie Hazlett Jamie Hazlett, OSB No. 073572 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: /s/ Arden J. Olson Arden J. Olson, OSB No. 870704 EXECUTED this 9th day of March 2026. OREGON STATE BAR By: /s/ Eric J. Collins Eric J. Collins, OSB No. 122997 Assistant Disciplinary Counsel