Joseph Domingo Suspended 60 Days for Rule Violations

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON In re: the Conduct of ) ) JOSEPH M. DOMINGO, Bar No. 030943 ) Case No. 24-184 ) Respondent. )

Counsel for the Bar: Susan R. Cournoyer Counsel for the Respondent: None Disciplinary Board: Mark A. Turner, Adjudicator Disposition: Violation of RPC 1.4(a), RPC 1.15-1(d), and RPC 8.1(a)(2). Stipulation for discipline. 60-day suspension. Effective Date of Order: March 6, 2025 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE This matter having been heard upon the Stipulation for Discipline entered into by Joseph M. Domingo (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 March 15, 2025, for violation of RPC 1.4(a), RPC 1.15-1(d), and RPC 8.1(a)(2). DATED this 6th day of March, 2025. /s/ Mark A Turner Mark A. Turner Adjudicator, Disciplinary Board STIPULATION FOR DISCIPINE Joseph M. Domingo, 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 April 23, 2003, and has been a member of the Bar continuously since that time, having his office and place of business in Washington 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 January 25, 2025, the State Professional Responsibility Board (SPRB) authorized formal disciplinary proceedings against Respondent for alleged violations of RPC 1.4(a), RPC 1.15-1(d), and RPC 8.1(a)(2) 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 this proceeding. Facts

Respondent represented Client on a personal injury claim that settled on December 8,

1. On or about December 12, 2023, Respondent received a settlement check for $15,250 representing the settlement proceeds. Respondent deposited the check into his trust account on December 15, 2023, and collected his fee and cost reimbursement totaling $4,037.50 on December 26, 2023.

Under Oregon’s Payee Notification Law, the insurer’s counsel had notified Client on December 12, 2023, that he was sending the settlement check to Respondent. Thereafter, throughout March – July 2024, Client asked Respondent multiple times for the status of her settlement disbursement by text messages, phone calls, and email. Respondent did not respond except to send one text message response in April 2024, apologizing for his delay and stating that he would process the disbursement soon. Finally, upon receiving notice that Client

had made a Bar complaint about his conduct, Respondent disbursed Client’s net proceeds to her and provided an accounting of her funds on July 23, 2024.

By letter dated July 25, 2024, the Bar’s Disciplinary Counsel’s Office (DCO) asked Respondent to address Client’s Bar complaint by August 15, 2024, which deadline was extended at Respondent’s request to September 15, 2024. Respondent did not respond. On September 19, 2024, DCO again requested his response, by September 26, 2024, but Respondent did not respond.

Based on Respondent’s failure to respond, DCO petitioned for Respondent’s administrative suspension under BR 7.1 on October 10, 2024. The Disciplinary Board Adjudicator administratively suspended Respondent on October 30, 2024. Respondent responded to DCO’s requests for information on December 9, 2024. Violations

Respondent admits that: by failing to promptly comply with Client’s reasonable requests for information about her settlement funds disbursement, he violated RPC 1.4(a); by failing to promptly deliver to Client the funds in his possession that Client was entitled to receive and to promptly render a full accounting of the funds, he violated RPC 1.15-1(d); and by knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from DCO, he violated RPC 8.1(a)(2). 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 duties owed to his client to act with
   diligence in communication and to handle client property appropriately. He violated his duty to the profession to maintain its integrity. ABA Standards at 9.

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. Respondent acted knowingly when he failed to respond to Client’s requests for information, distribute her settlement proceeds promptly, and respond to DCO’s inquiries.

1. Injury. For the purposes of determining an appropriate disciplinary sanction, the
   Disciplinary Board may take into account both actual and potential injury. ABA Standards at 6; In re Keller, 359 Or 410, 417, 506 P3d 1101 (2022). Client experienced actual injury in that she was denied the use of her settlement funds for over six months after Respondent received them. Moreover, an attorney’s repeated failure to respond to a client’s requests for information causes injury to the clients measured in terms of time, anxiety, and aggravation in attempting to coax cooperation from the lawyer. In re Koch, 345 Or 444, 456, 198 P3d 910 (2008). See also, In re Snyder, 348 Or 307, 321, 232 P3d 952 (2010) (“Client anguish, uncertainty, anxiety, and aggravation are actual injury under the disciplinary rules”). The legal system suffers injury when a lawyer fails to respond to the Bar in that the Bar unnecessarily expends resources seeking to obtain the information. In re Koch, supra, 345 Or at 45.

2. Aggravating Circumstances. Aggravating circumstances include:

3. Multiple offenses. ABA Standard 9.22(d). Respondent violated rules
   involving communication with clients, handling client property, and cooperation with Bar investigations.

4. Substantial experience in the practice of law. ABA Standard 9.22(i).
   Respondent was admitted to practice in Oregon in 2003.

5. Mitigating Circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include:

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

7. Absence of a dishonest of selfish motive. ABA Standard 9.32(b). There is
   no evidence that Respondent acted with an intention to conceal bad acts (such as conversion of client property).

8. Personal or emotional problems. ABA Standard 9.32(c). Respondent cites
   difficulties in his personal life that impaired his ability to respond to Client’s inquiries or attend to the disbursement of her funds.

9. Remorse. ABA Standard 9.32(I). Respondent has taken responsibility for
   his conduct, expressed remorse, and apologized.

Under the ABA Standards: Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in a pattern of neglect (failure to communicate) and causes injury or potential injury to a client. ABA Standard 4.42(b); 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; and 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 the legal system. ABA Standard 7.2.

Oregon cases reach a similar conclusion. Sanctions in disciplinary matters are not intended to penalize the accused lawyer, but instead are intended to protect the public and the integrity of the profession. In re Stauffer, 327 Or 44, 66, 956 P2d 967 (1998). Appropriate discipline deters unethical conduct. In re Kirkman, 313 Or 181, 188, 830 P2d 206 (1992). The Oregon Supreme Court typically imposes a term of suspension of at least 30 days for failures to communicate. In re Gatti, 356 Or 32, 57, 333 P3d 994 (2014) (“[A] finding that a lawyer has failed to adequately explain a legal matter to a client under RPC 1.4(b), without more . . . justifies a 30-day suspension.”); In re Snyder, 348 Or 307, 324, 232 P3d 952 (2010) (attorney suspended for 30 days because, among other violations, he failed to provide his client any status updates or other information needed to make informed decisions about the case for an eight-month period). A 30-day suspension is also common for failure to promptly deliver client property. In re Ledesma, 35 DB Rptr 188 (2021) (trial panel suspended Respondent for 30 days for violations of RPC 1.15-1(d) and RPC 1.16(d)); In re Grimes, 33 DB Rptr 332 (2019) (stipulated 30-day suspension for violations of RPC 1.15-1(d) and RPC 1.16(a)(3)). Snyder also involved a violation of RPC 1.15-1(d), because the lawyer failed to return client file, including medical records, until after the statute of limitations passed. While the court noted that violations of RPC 1.4 and RPC 1.15-1(d) could justify a total 60-day suspension, it reduced the suspension to 30 days because the lawyer’s mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors. The Snyder mitigating and aggravating factors are the same ones present here, except that the lawyer also cooperated with the Bar investigation.

A 60-day suspension is generally the lower limit for an attorney’s failure to cooperate with the Bar. See, In re Miles, 324 Or 218, 225, 923 P2d 1219 (1996) (120-day suspension for two violations of former DR 1-103(C) (predecessor to RPC 8.1(a)(2)). The attorney in Miles never responded to the Bar and was eventually defaulted in the subsequent prosecution. Respondent eventually responded in full to the Bar’s inquiries. While Respondent’s conduct justifies suspension, his violations were not aggravated or extreme examples. He eventually cooperated with DCO, and his lack of communication with Client did not occur during a time in which her position in the underlying legal matter was at risk of prejudice. His delay in delivering her funds did not result in her claim being time-barred or other prejudice.

Consistent with the ABA Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that Respondent shall be suspended for 60 days for violation of RPC 1.4(a), RPC 1.15-1(d), and RPC 8.1(a)(2), the sanction to become effective March 15, 2025.

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 no active client matters that would require him to arrange for an active Bar member to either take possession of or have ongoing access to Respondent’s client files or to serve as a contact person for clients in need of the files during the term of his suspension.

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.

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 January 25, 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 4th day of March, 2025. /s/ Joseph M. Domingo Joseph M. Domingo, OSB No. 030943 EXECUTED this 4th day of March, 2025. OREGON STATE BAR By: /s/ Susan R. Cournoyer Susan R. Cournoyer, OSB No. 863381 Assistant Disciplinary Counsel