Rebecca Sirius Fritch Flanagan - 30-Day Suspension

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON In re: the Conduct of ) ) REBECCA SIRIUS FRITCH FLANAGAN, ) Case No. 24-201 Bar No. 131938 ) ) Respondent. )

Counsel for the Bar: Matthew S. Coombs Counsel for the Respondent: Nellie Q. Barnard Disciplinary Board: None Disposition: Violation of RPC 1.16(c), RPC 1.16(d), and RPC 8.1(a)(2). Stipulation for discipline. 30-day suspension. Effective Date of Order: March 13, 2026 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE This matter having been heard upon the Stipulation for Discipline entered into by Rebecca Sirius Fritch Flanagan (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 30-days, effective the date of this order, for violation of RPC 1.16(c), RPC 1.16(d), and RPC 8.1(a)(2). DATED this 13th day of March, 2026. /s/ Mark A. Turner Mark A. Turner Adjudicator, Disciplinary Board STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE Rebecca Sirius Fritch Flanagan, 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 June 7, 2013, and has been a member of the Bar continuously since that time, having her 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 December 19, 2025, an amended formal complaint was filed against Respondent pursuant to the authorization of the State Professional Responsibility Board (SPRB), alleging violation of RPC 1.16(c), RPC 1.16(d), and RPC 8.1(a)(2) of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. 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

Stephanie Kyle (Kyle) and Louise Masog (Masog) retained Respondent to represent them in probating the estate of decedent James Masog. The Multnomah County Circuit Court appointed Kyle and Masog co-personal representatives on October 29, 2020.

Within the first six months of opening the probate, Respondent timely filed an inventory and affidavit of publication. Thereafter, Respondent continued to work on the matter with her client. Eighteen months later, on July 28, 2022, the court issued an order to show cause because no annual or final accounting had been filed. In response, Respondent filed a verified statement in lieu of annual account in August 2022, and the show cause hearing was cancelled.

In approximately 2022, Respondent decided to close her practice due to serious medical issues and the need for multiple surgeries in November 2022 and the spring of 2023. Between August and October 2022, Ms. Flanagan informed her clients, including Kyle and Masog, that she would need to close her practice for an indefinite period of time due to her medical issues. Respondent predicted that her practice would be closed for months, and perhaps longer. Respondent leave began in November 2022. Respondent did not formally withdraw from representing Kyle and Masog at this time at their request. Respondent leave extended longer than initially expected due to circumstances beyond her control.

After August 1, 2023, and while still on medical leave, Respondent did not communicate with Masog and Kyle. Respondent's telephone was not in service, and her mobile phone would not accept messages. Respondent was unaware during this time of Kyle and Masog's efforts to contact her due to her medical leave, which was ongoing.

Respondent was suspended on September 15, 2023, for failing to pay her Professional Liability Fund (PLF) assessment because the debit card on file for auto-pay had expired during her medical leave. Upon realizing the assessment was outstanding, Respondent promptly contacted the PLF and paid the assessment. Thereafter, her license was reinstated. Respondent was still on leave during this time.

Without the aid of Respondent, Kyle learned that the court had issued another order to show cause on November 22, 2023, setting a hearing for January 12, 2024. That hearing was set over to February 13, 2024, which allowed Kyle and Masog time to retain a new attorney, who filed a verified statement for them on February 9, 2024. Kyle subsequently complained to the Bar regarding Respondent's conduct. Respondent was not aware that the court had issued an order to show cause in 2023 due to her medical leave, which was ongoing at this time.

As Respondent's personal medical situation began to resolve, her mother's health declined. Respondent's mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Respondent continued her medical leave in order to care for her mother during cancer treatment and ultimately an organ transplant that required around-the-clock care.

Through her failures to communicate and her administrative suspension, Respondent constructively withdrew from representing Kyle and Masog. ORS 9.380(1), states that, "the attorney in an action or proceeding can be changed, or the relationship of attorney and client terminated as follows: (a) Before judgment or final determination, upon the consent of the attorney filed with the clerk or entered in the appropriate record of the court; or (b) At any time, upon the order of the court, based on the application of the client or the attorney, for good and sufficient cause." Respondent failed to comply with ORS 9.380(1) when she constructively withdrew from representing Kyle and Masog.

Disciplinary Counsel's Office (DCO) wrote to Respondent on August 13, 2024, requesting her response to Kyle's grievance by September 3, 2024. The letter was sent via email and first- class mail to Respondent's addresses on record with the Bar. DCO received an automatic email reply stating, "Flanagan Legal Services LLC is temporarily closed while our attorney (Rebecca Flanagan) is on medical leave caring for a seriously ill family member. We do not anticipate a return to the office before summer 2024. This email account will be monitored intermittently." Respondent was not aware of DCO's efforts to contact her due to her medical leave, which was ongoing at this time.

When September 3, 2024, passed without a response, DCO sent another letter to Respondent on September 9, 2024, asking her to respond by September 16, 2024. This letter was sent via first class and certified mail to both Respondent's record address and a residential address located through a public records search. DCO also sent the letter to her email address on record with the Bar. DCO received the same automatic email reply previously received. Only the certified letter mailed to Respondent's residential address was returned as undeliverable.

DCO petitioned for Respondent's BR 7.1 suspension on October 10, 2024, and the Adjudicator ordered her suspension on October 25, 2024.

In November 2024, upon discovering correspondence from the Bar among unopened mail, Respondent immediately called DCO and indicated that she intended to address Kyle's grievance and seek reinstatement. Respondent failed to respond to any of DCO's inquiries

related to Kyle's grievance prior to the filing of the formal complaint in this proceeding. In November and December 2024, both Respondent and her mother were ill, and her mother was hospitalized multiple times. In January 2025, Respondent's mother received an organ transplant, and thereafter required around-the-clock care until April 2025. In 2025, Respondent was diagnosed with a chronic disease, the symptoms of which she has been experiencing since some time in 2024. As a result of this diagnosis, Respondent is considered medically disabled.

In March 2025, Respondent hired counsel to assist with responding to the Bar and has been cooperative and forthright since that time. Violations

Respondent admits that, by failing to comply with notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating representation, failing to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests upon termination of representation, and knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, she violated RPC 1.16(c), RPC 1.16(d), and 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 her duties owed as a professional.
   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 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.

With regard to Respondent's failure to properly and explicitly withdraw as Kyle and Masog's lawyer, Respondent acted negligently. With respect to Respondent's failure to respond to the Bar's inquiries, she acted knowingly.

1. 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, 359 Or 410, 417, 506 P3d 1101 (2022). Respondent's failure to withdraw properly caused actual harm to Kyle and Masog in the form of frustration and anxiety. See In re Cohen, 330 Or 489, 496, 8 P3d 953 (2000), citing In re Schaffner, 325 Or 421, 426-7, 939 P2d 39 (1997). Respondent's failure to respond to inquiries caused harm to the Bar by delaying the investigation unnecessarily.

2. Aggravating Circumstances. Aggravating circumstances include:

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. Personal or emotional problems. ABA Standard 9.32(c). Respondent was
   dealing with several significant health issues and tending to her mother while her mother underwent cancer treatment. These events contributed to Respondent's misconduct.

Pursuant to ABA Standard 7.3, 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. Pursuant to ABA Standard 7.2, 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

Oregon caselaw suggests a suspension is appropriate. 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). A 60-day suspension is generally imposed 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. After this matter was approved for prosecution and Respondent retained counsel, Respondent responded in full to the Bar's inquiries. Additionally, the failure to respond to the Bar can partially be explained by Respondent's personal medical problems in November and December 2024 and her mother's organ transplant in January 2025, during which she had auto-replies turned on stating her office was closed. It was only when the Respondent discovered unopened mail at her home that she became aware of the Bar's inquiries and her conduct became knowing, and therefore, a violation of the rules. At that point in time, her administrative suspension had already gone into effect. This fact, coupled with Respondent's situation favoring mitigation, justifies a lesser sanction of 30 days for this conduct. Considering the remaining charges only warrant a public reprimand per the ABA Standards, resolving Respondent's prosecution with a 30-day suspension is warranted.

Consistent with the ABA Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that Respondent shall be suspended for 30 days for violation of RPC 1.16(c), RPC 1.16(d), and RPC 8.1(a)(2), the sanction to be effective upon approval of this stipulation.

In addition, on or before April 1, 2026, Respondent shall pay to the Bar its reasonable and necessary costs in the amount of $55.00, incurred for attempted process service of the formal complaint on Respondent. Should Respondent fail to pay $55.00 in full by April 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 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 her clients during the term of her suspension. In this regard, Respondent represents and warrants that she has no clients at this time and will not engage any new clients until her suspension has ended and she has reinstated her license to practice law.

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

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 or the denial of her reinstatement. 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: Washington.

Approval of this Stipulation for Discipline as to substance was given by the SPRB on January 24, 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 8th day of March, 2026. /s/ Rebecca Sirius Fritch Flanagan Rebecca Sirius Fritch Flanagan, OSB No. 131938 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: /s/ Nellie Q. Barnard Nellie Q. Barnard, OSB No. 122775 EXECUTED this 10th day of March, 2026.

OREGON STATE BAR By: /s/ Matthew S. Coombs Matthew S. Coombs, OSB No. 201951 Assistant Disciplinary Counsel