Sad piece here in today’s Oregonian about Portland trial lawyer Mike Shinn, who faces possible disbarment for taking clients’ money. Seems like this is just a take-it-in-the-shorts week for trial lawyers, as former trial lawyer John Edwards seems to be digging himself an awfully deep hole.

In the Shinn matter, the Oregon State Bar is reportedly pressing ahead with disciplinary proceedings, as it should. The Bar may also ask for an emergency suspension of Shinn’s license to practice.

Simple rule that every Oregon lawyer knows:  If you take a client’s money, you lose your license. It’s got to remain an absolute rule.  Clients need to trust that their lawyers are dealing fairly and honestly with them.

It’s sometimes easy for client-lawyer relations to go bad. You’re never starting in a happy and good place if you need a lawyer.  And that’s when the client first walks in the door.  Some lawyers do a particularly bad job of communicating with clients, and this can add to problems.  But none of those things ever justifies a lawyer taking an undeserved dime from a client. And if that’s what happened, Mr. Shinn should lose his license.

I’ve known Mike Shinn casually for a long time. He’s done some great work over the years. My hope is that this is all a misunderstanding and that he didn’t cross any lines. Regardless of my hope, the Bar needs to get to the bottom of it.  As for the former clients who are pressing their claims, we owe them both apologies and gratitude. It’s a thankless position. If there’s a lawyer out there acting corruptly, the willingness to challenge is the best way to protect the public.

Kudos, too, to Judge Tennyson who had the unenviable job of blowing the whistle. You don’t get a lot of love letters when you turn someone in. But it’s the right thing to do.

I’ve been ruminating all day on this story, along with my continuing annoyance over the Edwards matter. Maybe they’re totally unrelated. During my noon-hour work out, I had a flashback to my teen years. At the height of the Watergate scandal, I was sitting outside under tall shade trees with my apolitical grandfather. Harry was the kind of guy who wanted nothing more than to run his business, sip his whiskey and have a good time. He viewed all politicians with suspicion when he thought about them at all.

I was riveted by the Watergate hearings, and I asked Harry what he thought about the whole thing.

He took a long draw off his scotch, “They were schmucks,” he said.

“What do you mean?” I countered. I think I was thrilled that he would share some wisdom with me, his raging adolescent grandson.

“They were schmucks for doing it, ” he said. And then a quarter beat later he added, ” And they were bigger schmucks for getting caught.”

Maybe Harry’s take fits better on Edwards. As for lawyers who take clients’ money, well they’re schmucks from the get go.

David Sugerman