Private Practice Attorney
10335 SW Hoodview Dr.
Tigard Oregon 97224

August 22, 2000


Attention: Disciplinary
Oregon State Bar
5200 SW Meadows
Lake Oswego Oregon 97035


Dear Sir or Madam:

I hereby file a complaint regarding the ethics breaches of attorney Paul A. Cooney. I will list them here;

Mr. Cooney served me with a summons and complaint that had the wrong case number on it. {attached}. Mr. Cooney had thus misrepresented on the pleading that he certified that it was a true copy. It was not a true copy because Mr. Cooney placed the false case number on the summons and complaint.

The false case number apparently permitted Mr. Cooney to file a default before my Answer hit the Court's file. I filed an answer but Mr. Cooney filed a default and obtained a default judgment. Apparently, the false case number provided me by Cooney and placed on my Answer caused enough confusion at the Courthouse permitting Mr. Cooney just enough time to file his default. My answer was filed one day after his default was filed.

I filed a motion to set aside default because Mr. Cooney refused to stipulate to set aside the default. He agreed that such motions was granted quite routinely and readily.

Thereafter I filed a motion to set aside default. I received notice that a hearing date had been set by the Court. I was surprised to see that a hearing date had been set by the Court and asked the Clerk why a hearing date had been set. The Clerk told me Mr. Cooney had filed an opposition with the Court and asked for a hearing.

I telephoned Mr. Cooney and told him that he had not served me with his opposition. He said he was sorry and would send me another one. Thereafter, he sent me a letter but there was no opposition included. I contacted him again and he said he would send me an opposition. He did not send me an opposition.

After waiting for a time, I filed a motion to strike his opposition as he had not served me with a copy. The Court denied that motion but granted the motion to set aside default.

At the very start of the hearing, I informed the Court that Mr. Cooney refused to serve me with opposition papers. The Court continued the case for later in the morning and ordered Mr. Cooney to let me read his file copy. Thereafter Mr. Cooney permitted me to read the opposition but not the attachments and exhibits to his opposition. Instead of following the Court's order, Mr. Cooney stated, "I've served you three times." He refused to follow the courts order and permit me to view the opposition and exhibits.

We were then called before the Court again. I informed the Court that Mr. Cooney had disobeyed the Court's order. Mr. Cooney again, sidestepping his contempt of court, stated, "I've served him three times." The Court then adjourned the Court and ordered the Clerk to let me read the Court's file because Mr. Cooney would not obey the Court's order.

I asked the Court if he had made a ruling on whether I had been served. The Court stated that it only ruled on what was before it; a motion to set aside default and that he had granted the motion and as the issue of Mr. Cooney's refusal and/or failure to serve me with opposition was not before him and therefore he had not issued a finding. I therefore feel that the Oregon State Bar is the proper forum to regulate this unacceptable conduct by an Oregon attorney.

After the hearing Mr. Cooney and I agreed that all documents in this litigation would be served by registered mail.


Sincerely,



Private Practice Attorney
****

To: Oregon State Bar
Attention: Cara A. Lacy

re: Paul A. Cooney

Dear Cara Lacy:

I have reviewed the documents you have sent me supplied by Mr. Cooney and respond as follows;

Preparing false documents to the State Bar while under investigation and making misrepresentations to the Court.

As part of Cooney's submissions to the State Bar, he includes what purports to be a memorandum to the Le v. Private Practice Attorney and Private Practice Attorney v. Le file in his office. The memo states 

"I spoke with Margie at the Washington County Courthouse re: Private Practice Attorney's answer. Mr. Private Practice Attorney apparantly (sic) has quite a colorful past at the courthouse. He is said to pass himself off as an attorney and Margie thinks he will be representing himself.



There has been a mixup with the case numbers. When the case was transferred from Small Claims, it was given a new case number. When we filed the Complaint and Answer to Defendant's Counter-Claim, it was given yet another case number. Margie said she would work on getting the cases consolidated and would be calling me later this week to let me know the new case number and to verify that it would be fixed."

This document provided the Bar appears to be a fabricated false piece of evidence provided by Mr. Cooney to the Oregon State Bar. Mr. Cooney is supplying manufactured evidence to the Oregon Bar investigator.

1) Says the "evidence" supplied by Cooney to the Bar Investigation; "He is said to pass himself off as an attorney and Margie thinks he will be representing himself."

I have never passed myself off as an Oregon attorney to anyone. Before today I never spoke to anyone named "Margie." I have spoken today with Margie in the Civil Division at extension 2302. She states she might have met me and stated that I was 5 feet ten inches tall. I asked her what I look like and she said that she didn't know. I asked what color my hair was and she said I don't know, probably brown." For the Bar's information, I am 6 foot two inches, have a white beard and am bald. She says that she recalls my name because I was in court for a small claims matter many years ago and because the instant case was made a civil case. 

I asked Margie if she knows Paul Cooney and she said no. I asked her if she ever heard of the law firm Cooney and Crew and she said no. I asked her if she ever talked to someone named Michelle Nelson-Peninger and she said she might have but she doesn't remember talking to such a person.

In his hastily fabricated fake file memo to the Oregon Bar Investigator Cooney states "Private Practice Attorney aparantly (sic) has quite a colorful past at the courthouse." I asked Margie if she ever talked to anyone about me. She said no. I asked her if she ever told anyone that I had a "colorful past at the courthouse" and she said no. I asked Margie if she has ever heard anyone else in the court house or anywhere else mention my name. She said no and knew only that I had a small claims case over two years ago because she remembers that my wife was a photographer too. But she added, "I left small claims over two years ago. It might have been much longer ago than that." As such, the alleged comment attributed to Margie, and manufactured by Cooney is a false piece of evidence by Cooney for purposes of misleading the State Bar investigation. 



I asked Margie if she ever said that I at any time passed myself off as an attorney and she said "no." In order to defend himself in a State Bar proceedings, Mr. Cooney is willing to accuse me of committing a crime and to submit a manufactured piece of false evidence to the Oregon Bar. Manufacturing evidence to defend himself in a State Bar investigation is bad. But accusing an Oregon citizen of a crime, attributing that libel to an officer of the Court (Margie) to stymy a State Bar investigation is a very serious offense.

Mr. Cooney lied to the Oregon Bar when he provided the fake memo quoting Margie that the cases were "consolidated." I asked Margie if she ever told anyone that the cases in the instant litigation was "consolidated" and she said "no, I would never use those words. The cases were not consolidated. One case was voided/dismissed. I would never use the word consolidated. I know what consolidated is because we do that here but your case was not consolidated and I wouldn't use that word when talking about your case."


Mr. Cooney made false representations and/or attempted to mislead the Court regarding the two case numbers. Said another way, Mr. Cooney lied to the judge.

At the default set aside hearing Mr. Cooney said to the Judge, "he filed an answer that has the wrong case number on it." 

I filed an answer to his complaint using the case number that he put onto the summons and complaint. Cooney was representing to the judge that my motion was thereby defective because the proposed pleading (the answer) had the wrong case number on it. Thus, using that false representation to the Court, Mr. Cooney attempted to defeat my well taken motion.

The memo which states that there are two case numbers are dated April 18, 2000. The default prove up hearing was August 21, 2000. That means that when Cooney said that the proposed answer had the wrong case number he know at worst that HE HAD PUT THE FALSE NUMBER on the summons and complaint and at best that there was two case numbers floating around. He did not inform the Court that he KNEW that the wrong number was on the proposed answer because he had supplied the wrong number. Instead he lied to the Court either intentionally or to deceive the Court by stating that the number on the proposed answer was wrong in his bid to defeat the motion to set aside default. It was his duty to not use this false defense (defendant filed a defective answer because the case number is wrong) or to point out the Court that Private Practice Attorney had put the number on the proposed answer that had been provided by Cooney himself. As such, he lied to the Court. I am sure that the Judge will remember that Cooney said that the proposed answer had the wrong number on it. The court, believing Cooney told me "no more mistakes." Cooney had thus deceived the Court into thinking that it was my error and then if any other motion came up before this judge, the judge would be more likely to rule against me if he saw a ‘mistake.' Therefore, Cooney attempted to prejudice the Court in future proceedings by lying to the Court.

Mr. Cooney makes misrepresentations repeatedly to the State Bar.

At page 2 of the letter he states that he ‘suggested that he consider filing a Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment." He made no such suggestion. I stated that as acknowledged that these motions are routinely granted that he should just stipulate to set aside the default. He refused to do so even though it appears to be the custom of attorneys in Oregon and would provide less work for the Court and clerks if we merely stipulated to what we agreed would be a well grounded motion.

At page 2 he states that "Mr. Private Practice Attorney then proceeded to tell me that I was ethically obligated to relay to my client that he, in fact, had no money..." This is another lie by Mr. Cooney. Indeed, later in the paragraph Cooney states that I had permission to talk to his clients. Why would I tell him that he was ethically obligated to pass a message to his clients when he gave me permission to talk to them directly?

Mr. Cooney states that three times he served the opposition to default motion on me. That is another lie to the Oregon Bar. Indeed, I have provided the Court with the original envelope and a copy to the Oregon Bar showing that the letter he mailed to me was sent with a 33 cent postage indicia. If a letter, a motion, exhibits, proof of service were all sent in one envelope it would require the additional postage. Apparently the people who put the postage on the envelope were not in on Mr. Cooney's misrepresentations.

Mr. Cooney lies to the Oregon Bar about what occurred in Court. 
Mr. Cooney falsely tells the Bar that he offered to let me see his file on his opposition to set aside default. Mr. Cooney lies when he said it was "merely a courtesy offered by me." Indeed, the Court stated, "So Mr. Private Practice Attorney doesn't feel prejudiced, let him see your copy." That was in the form of an order. The Court then adjourned our case so that I could read Cooney's file copy. When the court adjoured our case Mr. Cooney showed no movement to obey the Court's order. Mr. Cooney simply sat in the back rows of the courtroom and said and did nothing. 

I came up to him and asked to read his opposition. He then opened his file and handed me the opposition but not the exhibits. I came back to him and asked for the exhibits he was referencing in the Opposition to Motion. In a direct violation of the Court's order Cooney said he would not let me look at them because "I've served you three times.". 

Cooney says that I cursed at him. This is another lie by Mr. Cooney. Because my daughter was home for the summer from school I brought her to Court. She sat a few feet away from me and the Judge and the attorneys on other matters were sitting all around. It is fanciful to consider Mr. Cooney's silly accusation that I cursed at him in front of my nine year old daughter, the assembled attorneys and judge. 

I hope that I have assisted the Oregon State Bar. I am deeply troubled that an attorney of the State of Oregon would slander me and accuse me of committing a crime; would manufacture a piece of evidence to defend himself in a State Bar investigation and place the slanderous and false words in the mouth of the Court's clerk.

Sincerely,


Private Practice Attorney

****

To: Oregon State Bar Attention: Cara A. Lacy 
re: Paul A. Cooney

Dear Cara Lacy:

I have read Mr. Cooney's latest letter to you dated October 23, 2000. Mr. Cooney had no involvement in my application for admission to the Oregon Bar. For Mr. Cooney's information and to answer any question from Disciplinary Department of the Oregon Bar, I am currently an active member of the California State Bar, the U.S. Supreme Court Bar, the United States 9th Circuit Bar. I have never been disciplined by the California State Bar or any other organization. All allegations made by a former client in California were dismissed as false by the California State Bar. The Oregon Bar saw the same facts and ruled otherwise.

I am a resident of Oregon and make this complaint as a resident of Oregon. Mr. Cooney appears to be saying I am barred from making a complaint to the Oregon Bar for unethical conduct of one of its members. The facts and evidence speak for themselves and a simply inquiry of Margie the Washington County Clerk and the Judge who heard the matter will provide all the collaborative evidence needed regarding Mr. Cooney's unethical conduct.

I have read Mr. Cooneys three sentence letter of October 23 2000 and note that Mr. Cooney has no defense to several charges;

(1) his attempting to defeat a motion by deceiving a judge by stating to the Court that I had placed the wrong number on a proposed answer (and thus the motion was defective and should be denied); when it was he who provided the wrong number to me.

(2) he provides no defense to his deceit to the Court when he said that he had "served" me 3 times when in fact he now admits that he knew that he had not or had doubts that he had (Cooney letter to Bar October 9 2000, page 4, paragraph 3 Mr. Private Practice Attorney called me to state that he had received a cover letter with no attachments, I took him at his word. That is what prompted the third mailing.") By not providing these details to the Court, he deceived the Court repeatedly when he said "I served him three times." In the many times he said that to the Court, he never said "I take Private Practice Attorney at his word and combined with the evidence of the letter with only a 33 cent stamp that I didn't serve him and thats why I mailed to him again." (Cooney letter to Bar October 9 2000, page 4, paragraph 3) By stating "I served him three times" Cooney lied to the Court by omitting relevant facts.

Again, the Oregon State Bar has a prima facie case, with documents and three witnesses attesting to the following conduct of Mr. Cooney; who, refuses to follow the law regarding serving oppositions, who intentionally deceives a Court twice in one hearing, who accuses an Oregon citizen of committing a crime and uses a fabricated piece of evidence to do so, who accuses a Court employee of making statements of slander she did not make, who repeatedly disobeys a court order regarding letting me review his file copy of his opposition and who lies to the Oregon Bar as they conduct their investigation.


Sincerely,


Private Practice Attorney

*****

Disposition by Oregon State Bar  "As there is no probable cause of misconduct I have dismissed this matter and will close my file..."

March 15 2001 letter to Cara Lacy, Asst. Disc Counsel Or State Bar: