Oregon attorney fabricates evidence

But the State Bar won’t call it forgery

Last month, the Oregon State Bar sanctioned attorney John Cochran for his dishonest response to their disciplinary investigation. Cochran was under scrutiny for failing to notify a client of her right to appeal, and failing to notify the court when she fired him.

Both of those things would likely have merited a mere public reprimand or less, but Cochran apparently could not stomach even that. Instead, he doctored up his own get-out-of-trouble-free card: a letter pre-dating the client’s complaint, informing her of her right to appeal, and his own withdrawal from her matter.

As the Bar put it in their monthly magazine, “Cochran sent [the Bar] this fabricated letter in an attempt to avoid discipline.”

Cochran’s fraud greatly added to the seriousness of the Bar’s charges against him, but then the agency failed to punish him appropriately: Cochran was suspended for just nine months. Historically, such dishonesty is met with a much longer suspension — up to two years — or even disbarment.¹ It is curious that Cochran got off so lightly.

Par for the course is the Bar’s refusal to clearly state that Cochran committed forgery, as defined by Oregon criminal law.

Cochran himself is also in denial: When asked for a comment on his suspension, and whether he expected to be prosecuted, he responded tersely, “No issues. No forgery.”

It’s almost as though Oregon attorneys — and especially the Bar — believe that the crime of forgery can only involve counterfeit money or paintings, and cannot possibly refer to something that a lawyer has done.

Neither the Bar nor the Marion District Attorney responded to inquiries.

¹ See In re Hudson (2013), In re Wyllie (1998), In re Yacob (1993), and In re Summer (2013).