Darren Karr
2265 Crestview Drive
West Linn OR 97068
503-544-2084
darren@karrboys.com

1/17/07

Client Assistance Office
Oregon State Bar
5200 SW Meadows Road
Lake Oswego OR 97035

In my original complaint, four accusations were made against Mr. Knauss. The four accusations are listed below and must be addressed individually in respect to Ms. Easterday’s response dated January 3, 2007 (henceforth, “The Response”).

Mr. Knauss violated the “Duties of attorneys” as prescribed by ORS 9.460. He employed means inconsistent with the truth and sought to mislead the court by artifice and false statement of fact. He attempted to defame me. He also suggested that I had committed the crime of Harassment, which I’m sure he knows is untrue based on the ORS definition of Harassment.


Mr. Knauss violated the “Duties of attorneys” as prescribed by ORS 9.460. He sent me a note saying he had filed the original Motion to Withdraw. When he saw that I wouldn’t let him get away with defaming me on his way out, he immediately sent me another note saying that he did not file the original motion. Mr. Knauss blatantly lied in either the first, or the second note to me.


Mr. Knauss violated rule 4.3 of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. By completely ignoring every one of my legitimate attempts to communicate with him, then filing a motion with the court in an attempt to prevent me from using him as “a conduit for my perceived transgressions”, he showed his absolute disinterest in dealing with me and his disinterest in the case.


Mr. Knauss violated rule 4.3 of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. He stated that I “inundated” him with “perceived transgressions” which were “non-productive”. He also ignored every attempt at communication. It’s obvious to me now that I misunderstood the role of Mr. Knauss. Mr. Knauss failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding.

 

Beginning with accusation number one.

ORS 9.460 Duties of attorneys. An attorney shall:

(1) Support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state;

(2) Employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the attorney, such means only as are consistent with truth, and never seek to mislead the court or jury by any artifice or false statement of law or fact;

Ms. Easterday chose to completely ignore this law, as it was never addressed in The Response. There are two claims made in accusation number one.

1. Mr. Knauss attempted to defame me. This claim is based on Mr. Knauss’ statement to the court accusing me of “inundating” him with “perceived transgressions”. Let me make this very clear, Mr. Knauss sought (his intention was to send the motion to the court. He certainly would have had I not immediately filed a response to his motion) to mislead the court (his statements were misleading and sent to the court) by artifice (Webster’s: A wily or artful stratagem (a cleverly contrived trick or scheme for gaining an end) trick, trickery). The “artifice” was his using a very standard motion to the court as a vessel to carry his defamatory statements, thinking that I, a pro se litigant, would do nothing about it. The end he sought to gain? The judge thinking I was some kind of crazy, irresponsible person. Someone not to be taken seriously. This is the same judge who will be making decisions about the best interest of my children and my relationship with them.

Ms. Easterday dismisses this claim stating, “It is not unreasonable to characterize the sending of five faxes in 2 _ weeks as inundating him.”

I’ve searched through Oregon Law, looking for something that specifies how many correspondences a pro se litigant, or even a lawyer, or anyone, may send to an attorney in a certain time frame. After reading Ms. Easterday’s statement, I was very surprised to find absolutely nothing. Would five faxes sent in four weeks have been inundating him? Would five faxes sent in six weeks be reasonable?

The fact of the matter is, each and every fax was a legitimate communication regarding his client. There were two reasons for the faxes being sent in such short order. The first, Mr. Knauss refused to respond and there was a question of whether or not he received the first fax. The second, and most important reason, Mr. Knauss’ client continuously ignored court orders which in turn was damaging the relationship with my children and very well could have (very possibly did) damage the children. His client refused to discuss very important issues with me regarding the children and I had no idea that if I were to communicate with her attorney about these issues, I would have to wait a specific amount of time between communications.

I was not inundating Mr. Knauss and the transgressions sent to him were certainly not perceived. All transgressions can be proven and were of the utmost importance to the wellbeing of my children. Mr. Knauss simply made a false statement of fact in an official, public document sent to the court, intending to mislead the court and do damage to my reputation and any future cases that would be before the judge regarding my children. It’s no coincidence that Mr. Knauss failed to include anything to substantiate his statements. He simply had none, making his statements false. Furthermore, if Mr. Knauss’ statements were true and he had not acted in an illegal, unethical, and/or unprofessional manner, he would have sent the original motion rather than quickly withdrawing the motion, immediately after I filed a response, and sending a second motion void of any attacks on me. This action by Mr. Knauss should be construed as his admission to wrongdoing.

2. Mr. Knauss suggested that I had committed the crime of harassment.

Ms. Easterday simply dismissed this accusation based on the Webster’s definition of the word “harass”. I failed to realize we use dictionary definitions in lieu of definitions set forth in Oregon Law. Now that I have been brought up to speed, lets examine, using Webster’s, the word “harass” as Ms. Easterday has stated it.

To exhaust – “to deprive wholly of strength, patience, or resources : tire out : wear out.” Unless Mr. Knauss’ client was bed ridden, broke (had no money/resources), or was worn out due to my correspondences with her attorney, “to exhaust” does not apply. In fact, using Ms. Easterday’s definition, Mr. Knauss and his client have been harassing me.

To fatigue – “to weary with labor or exertion.” Unless Mr. Knauss’ client had labored so hard over my correspondences with Mr. Knauss that she was to the point of being weary, “to fatigue” does not apply. In fact, the time and effort I have spent in fighting the injustice placed upon me by Mr. Knauss and his client has definitely caused me to become weary. According to Ms. Easterday, they are harassing me.

Annoy persistently – Annoy “to irritate with a nettling or exasperating effect especially by being a continuous or repeatedly renewed source of vexation” Persistently “continuing in a course of action without regard to opposition or previous failure : tenacious of position or purpose”. Mr. Knauss’ client had no justification in feeling irritated by my legal and necessary communications with her attorney. I’m sure everyone gets irritated with the law and the legal system. I get irritated by the speed limit on the freeway and idiot drivers on the road but they are in no way harassing me. “Annoy persistently” does not apply to this and I’m sure, most legal situations.

Therefore, Ms. Easterday has no claim to the Webster’s definition of the word “Harass” and may not dismiss the accusation based on such definition because said definition does not apply. Mr. Knauss, the court, and the bar are all in the business of law. I’m assuming they are accustom to using definitions set forth by the law. If Mr. Knauss didn’t mean to suggest that I had committed a crime, he should have chosen his defamatory words more carefully. How long has he been a lawyer? He should know better. Even if we are to assume that Mr. Knauss was not suggesting that I had committed a crime, he still accused me of “harassing” (by some other definition) his client, which really does not make me look very good to the judge. That is defamatory and damaging to my reputation and could seriously damage any case brought to the court by me. His making such an irresponsible, flagrant statement is both unethical and unprofessional.

Ms. Easterday was kind enough to send me the “OSB Statement of Professionalism”. As I read through it and think about this first accusation, sections 1.2, 1.3, and 1.5 jump out at me. I would like to add to the first accusation that Mr. Knauss is in violation of these sections and I am sure you will add other sections as you examine the actions (or non-actions) of Mr. Knauss.

1.2 he did not work professionally with me.

1.3 he was certainly not courteous, fair, nor respectful.

1.5 Mr. Knauss showed zero integrity when dealing with me. He was dishonest and unfair. His competence is in question.

Accusation number two.

Mr. Knauss specifically stated in his first correspondence to me, “Please find enclosed a copy of motion and order to withdraw and affidavit as your ex-wife’s attorney, which I have filed.” I guess this was another mistake by Mr. Knauss. He should have been much more specific and said something like, “Which I have filed but haven’t directed to be filed just yet.” Please, how completely ridiculous is that? How am I or anyone else suppose to interpret “which I have filed”? As Ms. Easterday would say (based on her previous statements), that is completely unreasonable. Does she really think I’m stupid?

I honestly take offense to Ms. Easterday’s statement, “There is insufficient evidence that when Mr. Knauss stated that he had filed the motion to withdraw that he had not directed that be done.” When a professional such as Mr. Knauss says that he “has filed” something, any reasonable person would assume that it has actually been filed. Not that it has been filed but not yet directed to be filed. According to Ms. Easterday, I and everyone else should always ask Mr. Knauss and other attorneys if they have directed something to be done when they say it has been done, and not be so ignorant to simply assume that it has been done. This, coming from an organization that “aspires to a professional standard of conduct. With adherence to a professional standard of conduct, we earn a reputation for honor, respect, and trustworthiness:::”

Ms. Easterday states, “To establish a violation of the ethical rule pertaining to dishonesty or misrepresentation, the statement must have been false, material and made knowingly”. She then states, “In any event that statement is not material in the sense that the statement would impair your legal rights.”

1. We know the statement was false.

2. It was definitely material and would impair my legal rights. I have the right to be told the truth by attorneys. I have the constitutional right to fairness under the law, which is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to your documents, I have the right to be dealt with fairly and with respect. On the other hand, Mr. Knauss has no right to attempt to deceive me, which is what he did whether it impaired my rights or not. This is what you consider “professional conduct”? Lying in a legal document then trying to justify it by saying that it’s ok for an attorney in Oregon to lie as long as my legal rights are not impaired?

3. Mr. Knauss made the statement knowingly unless he has Mad Cow.

As Ms. Easterday has pointed out, Mr. Knauss is in violation of the ethical rule pertaining to dishonesty and misrepresentation and should be held accountable.

Accusation number 3.

Mr. Knauss showed absolutely no interest. He implied his complete disinterest by never communicating with me regarding legitimate concerns I had sent him. This is a clear violation of Rule 4.3 of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. I had asked Mr. Knauss to supply the name and contact information of a counselor his client was sending my daughter to which is my right under ORS 107.154 and ORS 107.164. If he had any interest what so ever, he would have replied to that legal request. This also puts Mr. Knauss in violation of ORS 9.460 which states, “An attorney shall support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.”

Ms. Easterday states, “There is no duty to communicate to an opposing party.” Well, according to Rule 4.3, there is a duty to show interest when dealing with an unrepresented party, which he did not do at any time.

Accusation number 4.

According to Mr. Knauss, since there was no case pending in court, I should not have been “inundating” him with my “perceived transgressions” and using him as a “conduit”. I obviously misunderstood the role of Mr. Knauss as I was using him as a conduit for my perceived transgressions yet he let me continue to waste my time by sending him what I thought were legitimate correspondences. If what Mr. Knauss says is true, which I assume it is (but who knows, he may not have directed someone or something), then he is clearly in violation of Rule 4.3 which states, “When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer’s role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding.” Filing a motion to withdraw that contains false statements as the only form of communication does not fall into the realm of “reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding.”

Rule 4.3 imposes an affirmative requirement on the lawyer to correct any misunderstanding an unrepresented person may have about the lawyer’s role. I can only assume this rule is there for a reason. If Mr. Knauss is allowed to ignore it with no consequence, why have the rule at all?

In closing, I would like to address one more statement made by Ms. Easterday. “The Oregon State Bar Statement of Professionalism lists principles as guidelines for legal practice. These guidelines include the commitment to work professionally with all parties whose activities relate to a lawyer’s client’s work and the commitment to conduct an attorney’s legal practice in a courteous, fair, timely and respectful manner. While an attorney’s conduct may be unprofessional that does not necessarily mean their conduct is unethical under the Rules of Professional Conduct.”

This statement is all over the board. It’s amazing to me that Ms. Easterday is in the position that she holds.

1. Please show me where it states that unprofessional conduct is acceptable as long as it is not unethical as specifically stated by Ms. Easterday.

2. Ms. Easterday is admitting that Mr. Knauss’ conduct was unprofessional but that’s ok because it is not unethical.

3. She is talking about the “Oregon State Bar Statement of Professionalism”. How can a statement of professionalism say that its acceptable for an attorney’s conduct to be unprofessional, whether it’s ethical or not?

4. How can there be a “commitment to work professionally with all parties” yet “an attorney’s conduct may be unprofessional” at the same time?

5. Using Ms. Easterday’s Webster’s Dictionary, lets take a look at the definition of “Professional” and “Ethical” and compare them.

Professional - characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession or an occupation

Ethical - a : being in accord with approved standards of behavior or a socially or professionally accepted code : Moral <ethical conduct> <ethical practices> b : conforming to professionally endorsed principles and practices

Notice that the word “ethical” is used in the definition of the word “professional” and vice versa. I submit to you that Ms. Easterday is being disingenuous when she tries to distinguish the two in order to make her point. The point being that Mr. Knauss did nothing wrong. As she admits, he was simply unprofessional. This is unacceptable by the standards put forth by the Oregon State Bar.

Mr. Knauss ignored every attempt I made at communication, which were all concerning the wellbeing of my children and were legitimate communications.


He then faxed and mailed to me a document where he specifically stated that he had in fact filed the attached Motion to Withdraw and Affidavit which included fallacious statements that could very well have damaged my reputation and any future cases in front of that judge who will be making decisions about my children and my relationship with them.


Afraid of the potential negative impact of said motion, I immediately write and file (and direct to be filed) a response to the motion pointing out the deceptive, damaging nature of the fallacious statements made by Mr. Knauss and request that the judge dismiss the motion. Mr. Knauss was copied.


Mr. Knauss immediately sends me a certified letter stating that he really did not submit the motion as he said he did. Attached was a new motion that he would be filing after receiving verification that I had received his certified letter. The new motion had no defamatory statements and was strictly business rather than personal attacks and accusations.


The order was signed by the judge.


I submitted a complaint to the Client Assistance Office.


38 days later I receive a letter from Ms. Easterday stating that my complaints have been dismissed and I have 11 days to file for review by General Council.


I am well aware that Mr. Knauss is a hotshot lawyer in Clackamas County, a Judge, and former President of the Oregon State Bar. I also fully expect that Mr. Knauss be held accountable for his transgressions. It is unacceptable for an attorney to treat a person like he treated me, as is stated in Oregon State Law and Oregon State Bar documents. It is equally unacceptable for Ms. Easterday to treat me with such disrespect. I sincerely hope that unprofessional conduct is not indicative of the entire Bar Association.


Mr. Knauss’ actions and inactions have done damage to my children. It is the duty of the state to protect the best interest of children. Please ensure that Mr. Knauss does not do this to other children.


I ask that the General Council take this matter very seriously and reevaluate the entire complaint. It is very disturbing to think that the Bar Association would condone this kind of behavior by one of it’s members as Ms. Easterday has indicated.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Darren Karr

Message to Oregon State Bar Reporter from Mr. Karr:

It seems that attorneys can get away with anything they want in this state, no matter how severe. Its no wonder when we have attorneys in charge of disciplining attorneys and Judges (attorneys)overseeing the entire operation. There simply is no justice for us citizens.

I hope Mr. Knauss is disciplined through the Bar but if he is not, I'm prepared to file civil suits against both him and the Bar. I believe the only justice we may have will come from a jury.