TO: Oregon State Bar Disciplinary 5200 SW Meadows Road P O Box 1689 Lake Oswego OR 97035-0889
Re: Your Bar member Richard A. Sly
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am perpetually amused as to your bar members breaking your ethics code and thereafter your State Bar’s ethics police regularly finding that no violation has occurred. An Oregon lawyer lies in his advertising and you say that there is no violation. An Oregon lawyer plagiarizes a Wisconsin attorney’s works, lies to you about it (Stating that he got the over 700 words from noted Disability author David Lowry) and you find no violation. I could go on and on regarding your failure to do your duty but you know and your protectionism trumps your duty to the Oregon public.
Indeed, what does the public think of you? I find some appropriate words of Steve Duin of the Oregonian when he published;
"...just how low the Oregon State Bar will go...
the hypocrites who sit in judgment over the
legal community can barely recognize,
much less weed out, the untoward conduct
in their own camp."
But I am still hopeful that eventually the Oregon State Bar will actually do its duty either because of public pressure, political pressure, your own consciences will finally surrender or you’ll actually do your duty by accident.
I present to you today an Oregon Bar member who refuses to give up my client’s property. This property consists of the jurisdictional documents regarding my client’s social security disability claim and medical records which prove her disability. I need these documents to represent my client who is desperate for her benefits.
Notice was made on that Oregon lawyer that the client now has new counsel. Specific reference was made to the Oregon State Bar Ethics Rules stating that a lawyer shall not contact a represented client.
Specific notice was given of his duty to surrender the client’s property.
Specific notice was given that Sly was not to contact her.
Your bar member Richard Sly instead breaches at least two of your ethics rules here. In violation of your Rules of Professional Conduct Sec. 1.16(d) he has refused to surrender my client’s property.
In violation of your Rules of Professional Conduct 4.2 he communicated with a client on the subject of representation on that subject and furthermore did so against the express written notice by the client that she not be contacted by Richard Sly.
I am investigating on whether I should make an On The Record request to the Social Security judge (similar to a summary judgment motion). Of course, because Sly would rather intimidate my client and keep the records, I cannot do so and my client is being harmed.
I enclose the intimidating demand that Sly made upon my client and the red handed proof that he had notice.
Can you find time to look into this, even if you eventually find “no evidence” that your attorney Sly broke not one of the 3 ethics rules that he has breached.
To: Richard A. Sly 1001 SW Fifth Avenue,
Room 310 Portland OR 97204
Greetings:
I am the attorney for T** N**** and you have been informed of that fact on or
about March 22, 2006. After you were ordered by Nelson to surrender her property
to her and to not contact her you have instead written to her and attempted to
intimidate her and have refused to release her documents.
Obviously your own State Bar ethic rule that states that a party represented by
counsel is not to be contacted is to stop intimidation tactics such as yours.
I have begun an investigation to
see whether Ms. Nelson’s case would be appropriate for an On The Record-Fully
Favorable from a judge at the Office of Hearings and Appeals. Your refusal to
give up my client’s property is delaying this investigation and harming my
client.
I would invite your attention to your duties as a Social Security
Representative;
20 CFR §416.1540 Rules of conduct and standards of
responsibility for representatives.
The following provisions set forth certain affirmative duties and prohibited
actions which shall govern the relationship between the representative and
the Agency
4) Through his or her own actions or omissions, unreasonably delay or cause
to be delayed, without good cause (see §416.1411(b)), the processing of a
claim at any stage of the administrative decisionmaking process;
Therefore, please today, send this claimants property to her using the custodian
that she has designated.
cc: Oregon State Bar Disciplinary
Social Security Administration Office of
General Counsel
To: Richard Sly
Oregon State Bar Disciplinary
Social Security Office of General Counsel
Chief Judge, Office of Hearings and Appeals,
Portland Oregon
Mr. Sly:
You state that you have not refuse to surrender my client’s property yet you completely and repeatedly have ignored her demands that you give up her property in her notice dated March 22, 2006.
On April 12, 2005 I wrote to you regarding your ethics breaches in this regard and you still ignored your responsibility.
On April 13, 2005 I wrote to you again demanding that you surrender my
client’s property and reminded you that
you were in violation of your
duties as a Social Security representative pursuant to 20 CFR Sec. 416.1540
(4). Again, you refused to comply with your duties under your own Bar’s Ethics
Code AND Social Security Regulations.
It was not until April 17, 2005, after the Oregon State Bar Disciplinary Office apparently contacted you, that you finally made an inadequate response.
You clearly meant to and did intimidate my client who is fragile because of her disability. Rather than comply with her demand for her records, on April 4, 2005 you sent her an intimidation letter consisting of 4 pages, original and copy. This letter contained 6 interrogatories complete with three subparts and demands for essays regarding her termination of you. This after you were specifically ordered by her to not contact her and after you were reminded of your own State Bar’s Rules that it is unethical to contact her.
You were specifically told that any consent to view my client’s confidential medical records was rescinded and that you to send to her custodian the original confidential medical records and not retain a copy. You have disobeyed this order and you have violated HIPAA, Title 45 US Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 160 and 164 regarding persons who violate privacy rights. I again, speaking for my client demand that you surrender my client’s records and not retain any copy. You have no right to my client’s confidential medical information. I suggest you review the extremely heavy fines against any “person” who violates a person’s privacy rights regarding her medical records.
As you trample over all of my client’s rights you cavalierly state that she should simply go the Social Security and see what records they have on her. You must know of some very slopping attorneys who would guess that the record is complete at OHA and furthermore that claimant must simply forfeit her rights to her property because it would be inconvenient for you to simply put her records in the mail and send them.
Since you ask, I am a member of the largest and toughest bar association in the Country, the California State Bar and have been such for 22 years and have never been disciplined or cited for any alleged violation. I note that by looking at www.oregonshyster.com that you have at least 3 citizen complaints against you.
My marketing “claims” as you call them, have been vetted by the Social Security Office of General Counsel after apparently Mr. Graf took a run at them. The statement that a claim can be speeded up by applying the law to the facts of a case is totally correct and when applicable I will ask for a case to be given priority. I have been able to get a decision for a client “in a few weeks” because of my speed and detailed presentation to Social Security. {
 |
"It is
because of the speedy efforts of Mr. Private Practice Attorney that I obtained
benefits when I did.
|
|
Thank you for getting my benefits in 3 months after having
to wait almost three years (used another attorney before hiring
Daniel Alan Private Practice Attorney).
You were very knowledgeable and an asset at my hearing. Richard, Boring Oregon} |
I am rather amused by Oregon State Bar members attempting to speak on the issue of ethics. In the last six months alone, I have had a case where;
 |
|
You can read all about it at www.oregonshyster.com. What is the effect of all this? The “ethical” Oregon State Bar member is fired by the claimant and I am hired. When I see probable cause of malpractice of an Oregon State Bar member, I advise the claimant to contact the Oregon State Bar Referral Service or some other such source to obtain the advise of a legal malpractice attorney for his opinion and aid.
I will not divulge any communication between myself and a client but I will say that generally a claimant will telephone me and the first question out of their mouth is “Can I fire my attorney and hire you?” After a few weeks of hearing this same question over and over again I put the answer to that question into my advertising. “Yes, you have a right to switch lawyers at any time” and a citation to the law. www.disabilitybenefitsnw.com
I then will ask a claimant why she wants to switch lawyers. If the client outlines obvious incompetence or malpractice by the Oregon State Bar member and if the case has merit then I will take the case straight away. If I don’t hear any malpractice by the Oregon State Bar member then I will continue to ask why they want to switch and if they say “I’m just a number to him…he treats me like I was cattle…he has too many cases…he doesn’t care about me…I never get to talk to him, just some secretary…” then I will take the case.
You can assume which category your former representation falls into. You state that claimant could only fire you for “good cause” and good cause is apparent here.
Finally, I again demand that you send to me today, the original medical records. If you have any copies then you are directed to destroy them or to send them to claimant’s custodian today.
| Advertisement:
Northwest Disability Advocates
|
