From Oregon State Bar regarding ongoing, open complaint regarding H. Peter Evans 7.2.07

"You have expressed concern that H. Peter Evans billed a clearly excessive amount by billing at a rate of over $4,000.00 per hour and for charging for fees not authorized by Social Security regulations. 

Oregon State Bar Rules prohibit a lawyer from charging a clearly excessive fee or an illegal fee."

Scott Morrill, Assistant General Counsel, Oregon State Bar

****

Complaint filed:
Oregon State Bar-Disciplinary
5200 SW Meadows Road
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035-0889

Pursuant to my duties as an Attorney at Law, I hereby file the following complaint regarding your bar member H. Peter Evans. As I understand the facts, Oregon citizen LRF hired David Lowry’s law office. Thereafter, Lowry apparently pushed this Social Security Disability claimant off on his relatively newly admitted employee lawyer H. Peter Evans.

H. Peter Evans demands in his fee petition against this disabled claimant a total of $2,070.00. But H. Peter Evans only met with claimant one time for less than half an hour. Therefore, H. Peter Evans is demanding that Social Security Disability claimant Fisher pay Evans the astronomical sum of about $4,140 per hour for H. Peter Evan’s Social Security Disability lawyer services.

A review of H. Peter Evan’s resume shows that he graduated from a rather no-name law school, California Western School of Law and was admitted to practice law in Oregon in 2001. He was not engaged in litigation but rather was a “house lawyer” for an entertainment company and then moved to rather unchallenging job and low paying job of public defender e.g. defending criminals. He has only been engaged in Social Security Disability work since winter 2004.

Therefore, H. Peter Evans is hardly worth his apparent hourly fee of $4,140 an hour.

H. Peter Evans also apparently disregards Social Security Disability regulation in that he demands “costs”.

• Firstly, Social Security Disability regulations clearly state that he may not obtain “Costs” in a fee petition.
• Secondly, Social Security Disability claimant Rand Fisher states that he has already paid “costs.” to H. Peter Evans and/or David Lowry Social Security Disability attorney.

This, therefore is a misrepresentation and apparent fraud upon the Social Security Court (ODAR) by H. Peter Evans. As such, H. Peter Evans has apparently violated the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct which require an attorney at law to not commit fraud and not make misrepresentations

Social Security Disability claimant Fisher also states,

“I have only had the initial meeting with H. Peter Evans and was never able to reach him again to answer some questions.

The only person I could speak with was the person answering the phone at that office and I felt like I had been abandoned (by H. Peter Evans).

H. Peter Evans did not answer any of my calls until I called to dismiss him from my case for that reason on or about March 26, 2007.”

Therefore, this complaint to the Oregon State Bar states quite plainly that H. Peter Evans is in apparent violation of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct for abandoning a Social Security Disability client.

****

To: Oregon State Bar-Disciplinary
5200 SW Meadows Road
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035-0889

Re: Ho Peter Evans (sic)

(You refer to him as Ho Peter Evans in the Oregon State Bar letter of August 14, 2007)

Complaint-“H. Peter Evans demands in his fee petition against this disabled claimant a total of $2,070.00. But H. Peter Evans only met with claimant one time for less than half an hour. Therefore, H. Peter Evans is demanding that Social Security Disability claimant Fisher pay Evans the astronomical sum of about $4,140 per hour for H. Peter Evan’s Social Security Disability lawyer services. “

Response by H. Peter Evans-I am guilty of overcharging my client but a judge MIGHT review my overcharge, therefore it is none of the business of the Oregon State Bar that I am dishonest in my billing and exploiting a disabled Oregon citizen.

This is like an armed robber sticking up an Oregon citizen on the street and saying that as he MIGHT one day be caught and MIGHT one day have a judge say that armed robbery is unacceptable and therefore it OK for the armed robber to commit the crime.

He further tells the Oregon State Bar ethics investigator to “go to hell”; “Jurisdiction of deciding the fee petition at this stage rests with the local SSA Administrative Law Judge…” It is true that the SSA Administrative Law Judge will reject H. Peter Evan’s demand for $2,070 for a half hour meeting but it is the Oregon State Bar’s duties to discipline this lawyer for lying to a federal judge and for demanding money from an Oregon citizen for costs to which he is not entitled through the petition.

It is an standard Rule of Evidence that by not denying the charges against him when a reasonable person would deny the charge, that H. Peter Evans has ADMITTED to the charge.

H. Peter Evans goes to great length to tell the Oregon State Bar investigator what a great law school he attend. But as a member of the Oregon Bar he surely was taught a course in Legal Ethics before being admitted to represent Oregon citizens. His classmates in that ethics class who are now honest lawyers and his ethics law school professor must surely be horrified on H. Peter Evan’s twisted ethical views that he may commit ethics violations against Oregon clients and lie to a federal judge because “one day, a judge MIGHT stop him.”