N David Shamloo

My review is long overdue, I have had the privilege of having Mr. Johnston represent me on multiple occasions, and each time he has never failed to deliver. He is dedicated, knowledgeable, gets right to work, doesn't waste time, and in my opinion is the best family law attorney. My cases would not have been successful if it were not for the help of Mr. Johnston and his staff. Thank you Mr. Johnston, Bobbi, and Tora.

OSB comment about his service The Oregon State Bar Client Assistance Office (CAO) has received your additional submissions to your complaint about the conduct of Ronald Johnston, a lawyer who represented you in domestic relations proceedings. The CAO is responsible for reviewing concerns regarding Oregon lawyers. Under Oregon State Bar Rule of Procedure 2.5 and as resources permit, CAO determines the manner and extent of review required to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that lawyer misconduct may have occurred warranting a referral to Oregon State Bar Disciplinary Counsel. Misconduct means a violation of the rules of professional conduct and applicable statutes that govern lawyer conduct in Oregon. We do not make inquiry into the quality of a lawyer’s services. We also do not review the reasonableness of fees charged unless there is credible evidence that the fees are clearly excessive. You have expressed three concerns as discussed below. We conclude that there is no sufficient basis to warrant a referral to Disciplinary Counsel’s Office for further review. Your first concern is that Mr. Johnston failed to properly handle the issue of payment for an appraisal. Opposing counsel proposed that you pre-pay the full cost of the appraisal, and this would be equalized down the road. Apparently the issue was never properly revisited by Mr. Johnston, so you were not reimbursed. This is an issue concerning the quality of services, rather than misconduct. While both our competence and diligence rules touch on a lawyer’s errors or failure to attend to a legal matter, neither rule is violated by a single mistake. A single error, however, may constitute negligence, and a lawyer whose legal services fall below the standard of care in the community may be liable to the client for legal malpractice. If you feel you have a legal malpractice claim against Mr. Johnston, you may want to contact another attorney to explore what remedies are available to you. You or your new attorney may also want to contact the Professional Liability Fund, PO Box 231600, Tigard, OR 97281-1600. The PLF provides professional liability (malpractice) coverage to most attorneys in private practice in Oregon. However, I do not find this issue sufficient to raise questions as to misconduct under our rules. Your second concern relates to Mr. Johnston’s performance in court. You have noted that the court allowed opposing counsel to lead her witness in questioning, and Mr. Johnston did not object. This does not offend our rules, because matters such as what objections to make during trial are for the lawyer to decide based on the exercise of his professional judgment. The bar will not second-guess a lawyer’s tactical decisions unless those decisions reflect an absence or suspension of reasonable professional skill and judgment. That Mr. Johnston did not make objections you felt were warranted, or otherwise proceeded in a manner with which you disagree, does not mean that he provided incompetent representation or violated any other ethical obligation to you.

I would never hire someone to defend me in court that can't control their emotions in a car. He spend up and cut me off then slowed up. Learn to drive.