Robert Parker - 90-Day Suspension, Three-Year Probation, Oregon

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON In re: the Conduct of ) ) ROBERT ROOSEVELT PARKER, ) Bar No. 216437 ) Case Nos. 24-281, 24-286, & 25-42 ) Respondent. )

Counsel for the Bar: Susan R. Cournoyer Counsel for the Respondent: Amber Bevacqua-Lynott Disciplinary Board: None Disposition: Violation of RPC 1.1, RPC 1.4(a), RPC 1.5(a), RPC 1.15-1(d) (three counts), and RPC 1.16(d) (three counts). Stipulation for discipline. 90-day suspension, all stayed, three-year probation. Effective Date of Order: March 19, 2026 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE This matter having been heard upon the Stipulation for Discipline entered into by Robert Roosevelt Parker (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 90 days, fully stayed pending a three-year probation, effective April 1, 2026, for violations of RPC 1.1, RPC 1.4(a), RPC 1.5(a), RPC 1.15-1(d) (three counts), and RPC 1.16(d) (three counts). DATED this 19th day of March, 2026.

/s/ Mark A Turner Mark A. Turner Adjudicator, Disciplinary Board STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE Robert Roosevelt Parker, 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 December 23, 2021, 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 or about December 6, 2025, the State Professional Responsibility Board (SPRB) authorized formal disciplinary proceedings against Respondent for alleged violations of RPC 1.1, RPC 1.4(a), RPC 1.5(a), three counts of RPC 1.15-1(d), and three counts of RPC 1.16(d) 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

Case No. 24-281 - Client J Client J retained Respondent in February 2023 to represent him in a marital dissolution proceeding that had been ongoing since July 2022. Prior to Respondent's representation, the court had entered a temporary order in July 2022 awarding Client J's wife sole use of the family residence and custody of their two minor children, each of whom had their own counsel. The

court had denied Client J any parenting time with the children and ordered him to undergo a psychological evaluation. The dissolution had been designated a complex case due to the acrimonious nature of the parties' relationship and issues involved. Respondent collected a $25,000 advance flat fee from Client J for the representation, but the written fee agreement did not disclose that the funds were earned on receipt or that the funds would not be deposited into his trust account. Respondent had not completed the work contemplated by the fee agreement by the time he received the advance fee, but he did not deposit any portion of the $25,000 into trust. Respondent's $25,000 fee did not include payment for paralegal or support services; at Respondent's suggestion, Client J paid an additional $2,250 to an independent paralegal to help with gathering discovery. Trial was scheduled for December 11, 2023. Client J's main objectives were to receive a 50/50 share of the marital property, sell the marital home, and participate in reunification therapy with his children (one of whom was away at college). Prior to trial, Respondent noticed wife for a deposition that did not propound any information relevant to the dispute but focused instead on family history. Wife had always been a W-2 employee and had already provided all requested discovery. Wife incurred (but was later awarded in full) legal fees to defend the deposition. In his trial memorandum filed for Client J, Respondent inaccurately stated that wife had a felony conviction for fraud and that Client J's gross monthly income as a classroom teacher was only $2,648. Both statements were inaccurate; Wife was a public school teacher with no criminal convictions, and Client J later claimed $5,173 in monthly income. Respondent relied entirely on Client J's representations to him without attempting to verify these material statements to the court. Additionally, Respondent did not prepare a required UTCR 8.010 form or a uniform support declaration, and had not obtained proposed valuations of marital property. When the parties appeared for trial on December 11, 2023, Respondent was not prepared to proceed. Wife's counsel was ready to proceed, but Respondent requested the trial be re-set to allow the parties more time to gather more documents and explore settlement. The court granted the request, and the parties agreed to bifurcate the issue of parenting time for the court to address in a status check six months later. In a stipulated general judgment entered April 4, 2024, the court made a property award but left in place the July 2022 custody and parenting time provisions, including continuing to deny Client J any contact with his children, and imposed child support obligations that he could not afford. Respondent told Client J that he would move to modify the child support award ("Now we fight and attack back.") but he did not act despite Client J's urging. The stipulated general judgment provided that both parties could request attorney fees and costs under ORCP 68. On or about April 26, 2024, Respondent forwarded to Client J a copy of the wife's petition and declaration for attorney fees, seeking over $24,000 in fees and costs. (Wife's lawyers had represented her for 26 months and the fees included lawyer, paralegal, and

support staff time.) Respondent wrote to Client J, "I am going to challenge her attorney fee request and get a hearing on the motion for your proposed modification… ." On May 3, 2024, Client J asked Respondent to explain what he was doing, and what the process would be. In a May 13, 2024, email exchange, Client J repeated, "Let me know and loop me in the motion you file today as this is the expectation I have had for 5 months now. It is time and I hope you can complete this today as you stated." Respondent did not file any objection to the statement of attorney fees. Respondent withdrew from representation on May 28, 2024. The court awarded wife the full amount sought. After termination of the representation, Respondent eventually sent Client J a complete copy of his file, but did not return a three-ring binder Client J had given him representation until the end of May 2025, one year after he terminated representation and Client J complained to the Bar. Despite requests for an invoice or billing statement, Respondent never rendered an accounting of the funds he received from Client J because he did not believe he was obligated to do so, as he viewed the funds as a flat fee earned on receipt.

Case No. 24-286 - Client M In February 2023, Respondent undertook to represent Client M in defense of petitions for guardianship and conservatorship filed by Client M's estranged wife. In May 2023, Respondent also undertook to represent Client M in filing a petition for marital dissolution. Client M's daughter, acting as Client M's attorney-in-fact (daughter) paid Respondent advance fees for his legal services for Client M, including $4,000 in May 2023 to file the dissolution, and $800 to write Client M's will and pay filing fees. Respondent did not have a written agreement specifying that the funds were deemed earned on receipt or disclosing that the funds would not be deposited into his trust account. Respondent did not deposit any funds into his trust account or maintain records of any of the funds he received. Due to conflicts of interest that arose during the representation, Respondent withdrew from representing Client M in both matters in May 2024. Upon termination of representation, Respondent did not provide an accounting of the advance fees collected, did not promptly refund the unearned portion of the advance fees, and did not return all of Client M's documents, despite the fact that daughter had retained a new lawyer to represent Client M in the dissolution, which was set to go to trial the same week Respondent withdrew.

Case No. 25-42 - Client P Client P retained Respondent on September 13, 2023, to pursue nursing home and elder care abuse claims involving her late husband, who passed away after being evicted from PVMC, a care facility. Pursuant to their fee agreement, Client P paid a $3,500 retainer and agreed to pay Respondent a one-third contingent fee on any recovery. The fee agreement did not specify

that the retainer was earned on receipt or disclose that it would not be deposited into trust. Respondent did not deposit the retainer into his trust account. Respondent filed a probate petition and obtained a limited judgment appointing Client P personal representative of her husband's estate in February 2024. Respondent filed a wrongful death action against PMVC in March 2024. Client P paid all costs and filing fees. As the wrongful death action progressed, the parties engaged in discovery and motion practice, but Respondent did not promptly inform Client P of developments in the case, including all defense motions, hearings, orders, an administrative dismissal for want of prosecution and his motion to reinstate it one month later. Because Respondent did not explain these developments to her, Client P was not permitted to make timely informed decisions about the quality of his representation and whether she wanted to continue it. Client P terminated Respondent's representation on February 9, 2025, and demanded a return of her $3,500 retainer and case file. Respondent initially agreed to her demand but did not provide an accounting of the retainer or refund any unearned portion of it. Respondent returned most of Client P's original documents but was unable to locate and did not return the hard copy PVMC medical records she had entrusted to him in September 2023. Violations

Respondent admits that, with respect to Client J, he failed to provide competent representation in violation of RPC 1.1; charged and collected a clearly excessive fee in violation of RPC 1.5(a); failed to deposit and maintain in trust until earned an advance fee in the absence of a written agreement including required disclosures, in violation of RPC 1.15-1(c); failed to promptly render a full accounting of client funds (advance fee) received, in violation of RPC 1.15-1(d); and failed to deliver client property (three-ring binder) promptly upon termination of representation, in violation of both RPC 1.15-1(d) and RPC 1.16(d). With respect to Client M, Respondent admits that he failed to deposit and maintain in trust until earned an advance fee in the absence of a written agreement including required disclosures, in violation of RPC 1.15-1(c); failed to promptly render a full accounting of client funds (advance fee) he had received, in violation of RPC 1.15-1(d); and failed to deliver client property (unearned funds) promptly upon termination of representation, in violation of both RPC 1.15-1(d) and RPC 1.16(d). With respect to Client P, Respondent admits he failed to deposit and maintain in trust until earned an advance fee in the absence of a written agreement including required disclosures, in violation of RPC 1.15-1(c); failed to explain a matter to the explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions about the representation, in violation of RPC 1.4(b); and failed to deliver client property (remaining PVMC

records) promptly upon termination of representation, in violation of both RPC 1.15-1(d) and RPC 1.16(d). 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. By failing to deposit into trust the advance fees he received from
   Client J, Client M, and Client P, and thereafter failing to return complete sets of Client J's and Client P's file materials when his representation ended, Respondent violated his duty to preserve client property. ABA Standard 4.1. By failing to provide competent representation to Client J and failing to timely disclose and explain to Client P the developments in her case, Respondent violated his duties to act with diligence and competence. ABA Standards 4.4, 4.5. By collecting an excessive fee from Client J, Respondent violated his duty as a professional to avoid unreasonable fees. 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. Given his lack of experience and meaningful mentorship at the time he represented these clients, Respondent acted with negligence.

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, 359 Or 410, 417, 506 P3d 1101 (2022). Respondent's misconduct resulted in actual injury to each of the three clients. Given the underlying facts, Client J's dissolution proceeding may not have reached a more favorable result if he had been represented more capably, but Respondent's failure to competently prepare and litigate his case contributed to the $24,000 attorney fee award against him. Respondent's charging an excessive fee resulted in financial injury to Client J. Respondent's failures to preserve and

account for client funds and to return client files or unearned fees also resulted in actual injury to the clients.

1. Aggravating Circumstances. Aggravating circumstances include:

2. A pattern of misconduct. ABA Standard 9.22(c). This factor bears on
   whether a 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, 643-645, 426 P3d 64 (2018). Respondent repeated the same violations in three different client matters, establishing a pattern of mishandling client funds and papers.

3. Multiple offenses. ABA Standard 9.22(d). This matter involves three
   violations, each involving the mishandling of client funds, the failure to return client papers, one violation involving competent representation, and one violation of failing to adequately communicate.

4. Mitigating Circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include:

5. Inexperience in the practice of law. ABA Standard 9.32(f). Respondent's
   lack of experience is a significant contributing factor in these matters.

6. Role of Previous Reprimand.
   Respondent was publicly reprimanded for two conflicts of interest (current client and former client) on July 16, 2024. In re Parker, 38 DB Rptr 98 (2024). However, given the timing of the misconduct at issue here and the dissimilarity of the types of conduct at issue, there is no basis to consider prior discipline as an aggravating factor (ABA Standard 9.22(a)) or lack of prior discipline as a mitigating factor (ABA Standard 9.32(a)).

Under the ABA Standards, and absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances: 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. ABA Standard 7.3. Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent in dealing with client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client. ABA Standard 4.13. Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not act with reasonably diligence in representing [communicating with] a client and causes injury or potential injury to a client. ABA Standard 4.43.

Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer demonstrates failure to understand relevant legal doctrines or procedures and causes injury potential injury to a client, or is negligent in determining whether he is competent to handle a legal matter and cause injury or potential injury to a client. ABA Standard 4.53(a) and (b). The pattern of misconduct and number of violations aggravate the sanction upward to a suspension. Respondent's inexperience justifies staying imposition of the suspension with a probation.

Violations of the RPC 1.15-1 trust account rules usually result in suspensions of 30 to 60 days. In re Obert, 352 Or 231, 262, 282 P3d 825 (2012). See, In re Peterson, 348 Or at 345 (lawyer suspended for 60 days for violation of RPC 1.15-1(a) and (c)); In re Snyder, 348 Or 307, 324, 232 P3d 952 (2010) (lawyer suspended for 30 days for violation of RPC 1.4 and RPC 1.15- 1(d)); In re Eakin, 334 Or 238, 257-59, 48 P3d 147 (2002) (lawyer suspended for 60 days for violations of former DR 9-101(A), (C)(3), and (C)(4), which are the substantially similar predecessors of RPC 1.15-1. Unlike the present matter, each of these cases involved a lawyer's handling of a single client's funds. However, the lawyers in each of these cases had substantial experience in the practice of law. Excessive or improper fee violations, standing alone, frequently result in admonition or public reprimand. In re Alway, 35 DB Rptr 170 (2021) (public reprimand for multiple rule violations, including communicating with represented parties, using a misleading law firm name and letterhead, and collecting a fee from a protected party without prior court approval); In re Hale, 35 DB Rptr 48 (2021) (reciprocal discipline issuing public reprimand for multiple rule violations, including failing to supervise nonlawyer employees and collecting a clearly excessive fee); In re Kmetic, 33 DB Rptr 518 (2019) (reprimand failing to refund unearned portion of an advance fee upon termination of representation); In re Sandor, 33 DB Rptr 221 (2019) (stipulated 30-day suspension, all stayed, one-year probation for charging excessive fee in estate planning matter); In re Buchanan, 32 DB Rptr 308 (2018) (reprimand for charging an excessive contingency fee); and In re Swihart, 32 DB Rptr 296 (2018) (reprimand for accepting fees in guardianship matter without court approval). Although Oregon case law does not offer an exact fit, the parties agree that a 90-day suspension, all stayed pending a three-year probation focusing on practice management, trust account management, and continuing legal education can address and correct Respondent's conduct. BR 6.2 recognizes that probation can be appropriate and permits a suspension to be stayed pending the successful completion of a probation. See also, ABA Standard 2.7 (probation can be imposed alone or with a suspension and is an appropriate sanction for conduct which may be corrected). In addition to a period of suspension, a period of probation designed to ensure the adoption and continuation of better practices will best serve the purpose of protecting clients, the public, and the legal system.

BR 6.2 recognizes that probation can be appropriate and permits a suspension to be stayed pending the successful completion of a probation. See also, Standard 2.7 (probation can be imposed alone or with a suspension and is an appropriate sanction for conduct which may be corrected). In addition to a period of suspension, a period of probation designed to ensure the adoption and continuation of better practices will best serve the purpose of protecting clients, the public, and the legal system.

Consistent with the ABA Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that Respondent shall be suspended for 90 days for violations of RPC 1.1, RPC 1.4(a), RPC 1.5(a), three counts of RPC 1.15-1(d), and three counts of RPC 1.16(d), with the suspension fully stayed, pending Respondent's successful completion of a three-year term of probation. The sanction shall be effective April 1, 2026, or as otherwise directed by the Disciplinary Board (effective date).

Probation shall commence upon the effective date and shall continue for a period of three years, ending on the day prior to the three-year anniversary of the effective date (the "period of probation"). During the period of probation, Respondent shall abide by the following conditions:

1. Respondent will communicate with Disciplinary Counsel's Office (DCO) and allow
   DCO access to information, as DCO deems necessary, to monitor compliance with his probationary terms.

2. Respondent has been represented in this proceeding by Amber Bevacqua-Lynott
   (his counsel). Respondent and his counsel hereby authorize direct communication between Respondent and DCO after the date this Stipulation for Discipline is signed by both parties, for the purposes of administering this agreement and monitoring Respondent's compliance with his probationary terms.

3. Respondent shall comply with all provisions of this Stipulation for Discipline, the
   Rules of Professional Conduct applicable to Oregon lawyers, and ORS Chapter 9.

4. Respondent indicates that his practice is now focused on civil litigation. During
   the first year of probation, Respondent shall attend not less than three MCLE accredited programs, for a total of 15 hours, which shall emphasize civil procedure, discovery, local trial practice, or other basics of civil litigation. Upon completion of the CLE programs described in this paragraph, and prior to the end of the first year of probation, Respondent shall submit a Declaration of Compliance to DCO.

5. Prior to the end of the period of probation, Respondent shall attend Trust
   Accounting School, offered by the Oregon State Bar accessible by webcast of a previous live seminar held on February 4, 2026. This requirement is in addition to any other provision of this agreement that requires Respondent to attend or obtain continuing legal education (CLE) credit hours. The Trust Accounting School requirement does not count towards the 15 hours required by paragraph 12(d) above.

6. Throughout the period of probation, Respondent shall diligently and
   competently attend to client matters; adequately communicate with and explain matters to clients; safekeep client property (including client funds and papers); upon request or upon termination of representation, promptly account for and return client property in his possession.

7. Each month during the period of probation, Respondent shall review all client
   files to ensure that he is timely attending to the clients' matters and that he is maintaining adequate communication with clients, the court, and opposing counsel.

8. In the first month of the period of probation, Respondent shall: (1) conduct a
   thorough search of his office, storage areas, and other spaces for Client P's papers and return them to her; and (2) provide DCO confirmation that he has returned Client J's three-ring binder.

9. Each month during the period of probation, Respondent shall:

10. maintain complete records, including individual client ledgers, of the
    receipt and disbursement of client funds and payments on outstanding bills; and

11. review his monthly trust account records and client ledgers and reconcile
    those records with his monthly lawyer trust account bank statements; and

12. For the period of probation, Respondent will employ a bookkeeper approved by
    DCO, to assist in the monthly reconciliation of his lawyer trust account records and client ledger cards.

13. Robert R. Cleland, OSB No. 122980, shall serve as Respondent's probation
    supervisor (Supervisor). Respondent shall cooperate and comply with all reasonable requests made by Supervisor that Supervisor, in his sole discretion, determines are designed to achieve the purpose of the probation and the protection of Respondent's clients, the profession, the legal system, and the public. Respondent agrees that, if Supervisor ceases to serve as Supervisor for

any reason, Respondent will immediately notify DCO and engage a new Supervisor, approved by DCO, within one month.

1. Respondent and Supervisor agree and understand that Supervisor is providing
   his services voluntarily and cannot accept payment for providing supervision pursuant to this Stipulation for Discipline.

2. Beginning with the first month of the period of probation, Respondent shall
   meet with Supervisor in person at least once a month for the purpose of:

3. Allowing Supervisor to review the status of Respondent's law practice
   and his performance of legal services on behalf of clients. Every month during the period of probation, Supervisor shall conduct a random audit of ten (10) client files or ten percent (10%) of Respondent's active caseload, whichever is greater, to determine whether Respondent is timely, competently, diligently, and ethically attending to matters, safe- keeping his clients' papers and other tangible property, and taking reasonably practicable steps to protect his clients' interests upon termination of employment.

4. Permitting Supervisor to inspect and review Respondent's accounting and
   record keeping systems to confirm that he is reviewing and reconciling his lawyer trust account records and maintaining complete records of the receipt and disbursement of client funds. Respondent agrees that Supervisor may contact all employees and independent contractors who assist Respondent in the review and reconciliation of his lawyer trust account records.

5. Respondent authorizes Supervisor to communicate with DCO regarding his
   compliance or non-compliance with the terms of this agreement, and to release to DCO any information necessary to permit DCO to assess Respondent's compliance.

6. Within seven (7) days of the effective date, Respondent shall contact the
   Professional Liability Fund (PLF) and schedule an appointment on the soonest date available to consult with PLF's Practice Management Attorneys in order to obtain practice management advice or an update on advice previously obtained. Respondent shall notify DCO of the time and date of the appointment.

7. Respondent shall attend the appointment with the PLF's Practice Management
   Attorneys and seek advice and assistance (or updated advice and further assistance) regarding office procedures to ensure: (1) organized handling of client property (including trust accounting); (2) appropriate case-screening considerations to avoid undertaking legal matters for which he lacks sufficient competence; (3) diligent pursuit of client matters; (4) communicating with

clients, (5) effectively managing a client caseload; and (5) taking reasonable steps to protect clients upon the termination of his employment. No later than thirty (30) days after recommendations are made by the PLF's Practice Management Attorneys, Respondent shall adopt and implement those recommendations.

1. No later than sixty (60) days after recommendations are made by the PLF's
   Practice Management Attorneys, Respondent shall provide a copy of the Office Practice Assessment from the PLF's Practice Management Attorneys and file a report with DCO stating the date of his consultation(s) with the PLF's Practice Management Attorneys; identifying the recommendations that he has adopted and implemented; and identifying the specific recommendations he has not implemented and explaining why he has not adopted and implemented those recommendations.

2. Respondent shall implement all recommended changes, to the extent reasonably
   possible, and participate in at least one additional follow-up review with PLF Practice Management Attorneys on or before a date approximately six months after the meeting described in subparagraph (o) above.

3. On a quarterly basis, on dates to be established by DCO beginning no later than
   90 days after the effective date, Respondent shall submit to DCO a written "Compliance Report," approved as to substance by Supervisor, advising whether Respondent is in compliance with the terms of this Stipulation for Discipline, including:

4. The dates and purpose of Respondent's meetings with Supervisor.

5. The number of Respondent's active cases and percentage reviewed in the
   monthly audit with Supervisor and the results thereof.

6. Whether Respondent has completed the other provisions recommended
   by Supervisor, if applicable.

7. In the event that Respondent has not complied with any term of this
   Stipulation for Discipline, the Compliance Report shall describe the non- compliance and the reason for it.

8. Respondent is responsible for any costs required under the terms of this
   stipulation and the terms of probation.

9. Respondent's failure to comply with any term of this agreement, including
   conditions of timely and truthfully reporting to DCO, or with any reasonable request of Supervisor, shall constitute a basis for the revocation of probation and imposition of the stayed portion of the suspension.

10. A Compliance Report is timely if it is emailed, mailed, faxed, or delivered to DCO
    on or before its due date.

11. The SPRB's decision to bring a formal complaint against Respondent for
    unethical conduct that occurred or continued during the period of probation shall also constitute a basis for revocation of the probation and imposition of the stayed portion of the suspension.

12. Upon the filing of a petition to revoke Respondent's probation pursuant to BR
    6.2(4), Respondent's remaining probationary term shall be automatically tolled and shall remain tolled, until the BR 6.2(4) petition is adjudicated by the Adjudicator or, if appointed, the Disciplinary Board.

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 any term of suspension, if any stayed period of suspension is actually imposed. In this regard, if any stayed period of suspension is actually imposed Respondent has arranged for Robert R. Cleland, 1830 Blankenship Road Suite 240, West Linn, OR 97068, an active member of the Bar, to either take possession of or have ongoing access to Respondent's client files and serve as the contact person for clients in need of the files during the term of an actual suspension. Respondent represents that Mr. Cleland has agreed to accept this responsibility.

If Respondent is administratively suspended for any reason during his period of probation (such as for IOLTA reporting, PLF dues, Bar dues, or MCLE compliance), Respondent must resolve the suspension and reinstate to active licensure status within 30 days. Failure to do so is cause for termination of his probation.

Respondent acknowledges that reinstatement is not automatic on expiration of any period of suspension, if any stayed period of suspension is actually imposed. If a period of suspension is necessitated by non-compliance with the terms of probation, Respondent will be required to comply with the applicable provisions of Title 8 of the Bar Rules of Procedure in order to be reinstated. Respondent also acknowledges that, should a suspension occur, 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 Legal Ethics Best Practices (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. 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. The Ethics School requirement does not count towards the 15 hours required by paragraph 12(d) above.

Respondent represents that he is not admitted to practice law in any jurisdictions (whether currently active, inactive, or suspended) other than Oregon.

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 13th day of March, 2026. /s/ Robert Roosevelt Parker Robert Roosevelt Parker OSB No. 216437 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: /s/ Amber Bevacqua-Lynott Amber Bevacqua-Lynott OSB No. 990280 EXECUTED this 17th day of March, 2026. OREGON STATE BAR By: /s/ Susan R. Cournoyer Susan R. Cournoyer OSB No. 863381 Assistant Disciplinary Counsel