
    Submitted on the record August 20,
    accused disbarred September 26, 2002
    In re Complaint as to the Conduct of JAMES JOSEPH McLAUGHLIN, Accused.
    
    (OSB Nos. 00-107, 01-123, 01-124, 01-125, 01-126, 01-141, 01-142, 01-143, 01-144, 01-145, 01-211, 01-223; SC S49577)
    54 P3d 123
    Stacy J. Hankin, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Lake Oswego, filed the Sanction Memorandum for the Oregon State Bar.
    No appearance contra.
    
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, the Oregon State Bar (Bar) alleged that the accused violated the following: Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule (DR) 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); DR 1-102(A)(4) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice); DR 1-103(C) (failing to cooperate with disciplinary investigation); DR 2-110(A) (2) (withdrawing from employment without taking reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to client); DR 2-110(B)(2) (knowingly engaging in employment that lawyer knows violates disciplinary rules); DR 6-101 (A) (providing incompetent representation to client); DR 6-101 (B) (neglecting legal matter entrusted to lawyer); DR 7-101 (A)(2) (failing to carry out contract entered into with client for professional services); DR 7-101 (A)(3) (prejudicing or damaging lawyer’s client during course of professional relationship); DR 7-102 (A) (2) (knowingly advancing claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law); DR 7-106(A) (disregarding or advising client to disregard standing rule of a tribunal); and ORS 9.527(3) (willfully disobeying court order).

On August 30, 2001, the Bar served the accused’s lawyer with a formal complaint and a notice to answer. The accused failed to appear in the time provided by the Bar Rules of Procedure and failed to submit a resignation. On January 17, 2002, the Bar served the accused’s lawyer with a second amended formal complaint. The accused again failed to file an answer, appear, or submit his resignation. A trial panel of the Disciplinary Board entered a default order on March 7, 2002. In a subsequent sanctions hearing, the trial panel deemed the Bar’s allegations of misconduct to be true and concluded that the accused should be disbarred.

On die novo review of the record, we agree with the trial panel that the accused should be disbarred.

The accused is disbarred. 
      
       An exhaustive discussion of the accused’s multiple acts of misconduct would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public.
     