Daniel BernathThis is an example of how petty and second-tier Portland is. The article screams of blatant "home-towning." Obviously some aggrieved Portland lawyer with a friend at the WW called up and called a shot. How lame. How incestuous. How Mayberry. Is this really the most rogueish thing that happened in Portland this week? Or just the most rogueish thing that some chum with a WW editor's number in their rolodex phoned in? Media in more self-confident cities are above intervening in competitive disputes over a few bluehairs. They have bigger fish to fry. Why can't media in our city get that? Or is it to painful for their patrons to hear?—Stop Mayberry

 

Daniel BernathI would disagree, in my (nonprofit) line of work the elderly AND the disabled (not to be forgotten or clumped into a description as 'bluehairs') are often confused about the long drawn out process that is involved with getting on SS/SSI/SSD. I think they need every help they can get to make sure that they aren't scammed. For every lawyer advertising in a newspaper or on television, there should be articles like this letting people know which ones are trustworthy and which ones aren't. —

 

Daniel BernathMr. Bernath,If we are so "Mayberry" and lame, then kindly take your ass out of our state and back to California, where you belong.No one wants you damn Californians coming up here Californicating Oregon anyway. We live here because we like Portland and Oregon the way it is. If I wanted to live in California, I would move there.Regards,Tim—Tim

 

Daniel BernathWe ARE Mayberry. We ARE Stumptown. We pay attention to bluehairs and actually care to call out the Rogues of little people, not just attention grabbing headlines. And if you know a WW editor, you get some pull for the Rogue. And that's okay. You also know when to use "to" and "too". Small towns fry small fish. Don't like it? Move to Seattle or back to California.—Danny

 

Daniel Bernathhttp://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S44863.htmIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGONIn the Matter of the Application ofDANIEL ALAN BERNATH,For Admission to the Oregon State Bar.(SC S44863) In its recommendation to this court, the Board identified the following findings of the three-member panel that the full Board believed demonstrated applicant's lack of good moral character and fitness to practice law in Oregon: "(A) He disobeyed a court order to pay child support. "(B) He was suspended for over a year in the State of California for failure to pay child support. "(C) He failed to inform the Board that he was suspended from the practice of law in the State of California and he lied to the Board about his suspension in California, stating that he was not suspended when he was in fact suspended. "(D) He loaned money to a client, Tamara Varner ('Varner'), and collected on the loan from settlement proceeds from Varner's lawsuit without Varner's knowledge or agreement. "(E) He signed Varner's name to a release without Varner's knowledge and without advising the opposing party or counsel for the opposing party that he was signing the release on behalf of Varner. On that same release he signed as a witness, attesting to the authenticity of Varner's signature. "(F) He lied by omission to the Board when he told it that he did not notarize the Varner settlement document. "(G) He endorsed Varner's name to the settlement check without Varner's knowledge and without advising the bank that he was doing so. "(H) He retained all of the proceeds of the settlement without Varner's knowledge or agreement. "(I) He failed to respond to a notice from the Committee on Arbitration of the Los Angeles County Bar Association that Varner was disputing his fee and that there would be an arbitration of the dispute. He also failed to appear at the hearing. "(J) He failed to advise the Board of the fee dispute or the award in favor of Varner and against him in the amount of $10,000. "(K) He wrote a letter to Varner after entry of the award against him wherein he misrepresented the law and threatened to sue her if she did not agree to settle with him for $500. "(L) He destroyed all of his files for all of the cases he handled in California. "(M) A judgment was entered in California against him in the amount of $34,000 for malicious prosecution. "(N) He lied by omission to the Board when in his application for admission he stated that the judgment for malicious prosecution was reversed, but did not state that it was reversed by stipulation of the parties rather than on the merits. "(O) He failed to inform the Board about a lawsuit to which he was a party and which settled in applicant's favor for the amount of approximately $41,000.00. "(P) On May 16, 1997, he issued subpoenas on which he holds himself out to be an attorney practicing in Oregon. "(Q) Applicant failed to inform the Board about a lawsuit in which applicant was a plaintiff in an attorney fee dispute. "(R) Applicant failed to inform the Board that a motion for sanctions was made against him for appearing at a deposition while carrying a concealed weapon and that a sanction was assessed against him in the amount of $750." —tedders