IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF OREGON

In re: )
)
Complaint as to the Conduct of ) Case No. 19-32
)
BRENT S. TANTILLO, )
)
Respondent. )

Counsel for the Bar: Courtney C. Dippel

Counsel for the Respondent: Steven B. Ungar

Disciplinary Board: None

Disposition: Violation of RPC 3.3(a)(1), RPC 5.3(a), RPC 5.3(b),

RPC 5.5(a), and ORS 9.160(1). Stipulation for Discipline.
60-day suspension.

Effective Date of Order: May 31, 2020

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE

This matter having been heard upon the Stipulation for Discipline entered into by
Brent S. Tantillo (Respondent) and the Oregon State Bar, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation between the parties is approved and
Respondent is suspended for 60 days, effective ten (10) days after the date of this order, for
violations of RPC 3.3(a)(1), RPC 5.5(a), RPC 5.3(a) and (b), and ORS 9.160(1).

DATED this 21st day of May, 2020.

/s/ Mark A. Turner

Mark A. Turner
Adjudicator, Disciplinary Board

STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE

Brent S. Tantillo, attorney at law (Respondent), and the Oregon State Bar (Bar) hereby
stipulate to the following matters pursuant to Bar Rule of Procedure 3.6(c).
 1.

The Bar was created and exists by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon and is, and at
all times mentioned herein was, authorized to carry out the provisions of ORS Chapter 9,
relating to the discipline of attorneys.
2.

Respondent was, at all times mentioned herein, admitted to practice law in the District
of Columbia and was not admitted to practice in Oregon. Respondent was admitted to practice
law in the District of Columbia on November 12, 2004.
3.

Respondent enters into this Stipulation for Discipline freely, voluntarily, and with the
advice of counsel. This Stipulation for Discipline is made under the restrictions of Bar Rule of
Procedure 3.6(h).
4.

On July 2, 2019, a formal complaint was filed against Respondent pursuant to the
authorization of the State Professional Responsibility Board (SPRB), alleging violation of rules
3.3(a)(1), 5.3(a), 5.3(b)(2), and 5.5(a) of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, and
ORS 9.160(1). The parties intend that this Stipulation for Discipline set forth all relevant facts,
violations and the agreed-upon sanction as a final disposition of the proceeding.

Facts
5.

On or about February 2, 2018, Respondent filed a pleading in Washington County Circuit

Court case number 18LT01187 entitled “Notice of Removal of Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1332(a), 1441(a) and (b)” (Notice of Removal). In the Notice of Removal, Respondent purported
to represent an individual named Lisa Diamond.
6.

The Notice of Removal was prepared by Respondent’s employee, Ajit Narasimham, over
whom Respondent had direct supervisory authority. Respondent reviewed the Notice of
Removal before it was filed with the court.
7.

In the Notice of Removal, Respondent knowingly represented that he was admitted to

appear in the matter pro hac vice. When he made this representation, Respondent knew that
he was not admitted to appear pro hac vice, and had not sought permission to appear pro hac
vice, in the matter.
8.

When counsel for the opposing party contacted Respondent about his false
representation regarding pro hac vice admission, Respondent failed to promptly correct this
false statement or take other remedial action.

Violations
9.

Respondent admits that, by engaging in the conduct described in paragraphs 1 through

8 herein, he violated RPC 3.3(a)(1), RPC 5.5(a), RPC 5.3(a) and (b), and ORS 9.160(1).

Sanction
10.

Respondent and the Bar agree that in fashioning an appropriate sanction in this case,
the Disciplinary Board should consider the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
(Standards). The Standards require that Respondent’s conduct be analyzed by considering the
following factors: (1) the ethical duty violated; (2) the attorney’s mental state; (3) the actual or
potential injury; and (4) the existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

a. Duty Violated. Respondent violated his duty to the legal system to refrain from
making false statements to the court, and his duty owed as a professional to
refrain from engaging in or assisting in the unauthorized practice of law.
Standards 6.1 and 7.0.

b. Mental State. Respondent acted knowingly, i.e., with the conscious awareness of
the nature or attendant circumstances of his conduct, but without the conscious
objective to accomplish a particular result. Standard 3.0(b).

c. Injury. Respondent’s unlawful practice of law and misrepresentations to the

court inherently posed the potential for injury to Diamond and the court. In re
Devers, 328 Or 230,242, 974 P29 191 (1999).

d. Aggravating Circumstances. Aggravating circumstances include:

1. Prior disciplinary offenses. Respondent was admonished in November

2014 by the Washington, DC Bar for making a false statement to court
personnel in litigation in the state of Florida. At the time of the conduct in
this case, Respondent also was under investigation by the California State
 Bar for appearing in litigation in that state without pro hac vice
admission. Standard 9.22(a).

2. Multiple disciplinary offenses. Standard 9.22(d).

3. Substantial experience in the practice of law. Respondent has been a

member of the Washington, DC Bar since 2004. Standard 9.22(i).

e. Mitigating Circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include:

1. Absence of a dishonest or selfish motive. Standard 9.32(b).

2. Personal or emotional problems. At the time of the conduct described

above, Respondent was separated from his wife and children and
involved in the dissolution of his marriage. Respondent’s son was also
hospitalized twice during the time in which his conduct occurred. These
problems increased Respondent’s reliance upon his staff and interfered
with his ability to supervise his staff. Standard 9.32(c).

4. Cooperation with DCO’s investigation. Respondent made full and free

disclosure and displayed a cooperative attitude in these proceedings.
Standard 9.32(e).

5. Remorse. Respondent has expressed remorse for his conduct. Standard

9.32(l).
11.

Under the Standards, a suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly

makes a false statement to the court and takes no remedial action, resulting in injury or
potential injury to a party or causes a potentially adverse effect upon that proceeding.
Standard 6.12. Suspension is also appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that
is a violation of a duty owed as a professional, and causes injury or potential injury to a client,
the public, or the legal system. Standard 7.2.
12.

Oregon case law is in accord. In re Billman, 27 DB Rptr 126 (2013) [lawyer suspended for
30 days for representing to the court that his client had approved the terms of a settlement
when she had not]; In re Barker, 24 DB Rptr 246 (2010) [Idaho lawyer suspended for 60 days for
representing a client in Oregon where he was suspended, and making a false statement to the
Bar during its investigation of his conduct]; In re Carreon, 19 DB Rptr 297 (2005) [lawyer
suspended for 60 days for acting as house counsel and practicing law in Canada without
admission to the British Columbia Bar].
 13.

Consistent with the Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that Respondent
shall be suspended for a period of 60 days for violation of RPC 3.3(a)(1, RPC 5.5(a), RPC 5.3(a)
and (b), and ORS 9.160(1), the sanction to be effective 10 days after the date on which this
stipulation is approved by the Disciplinary Board.
14.

Respondent is admitted to practice law in Washington, DC, where his current status is
active, and he acknowledges that the Bar will inform that jurisdiction of the final disposition of
this proceeding.
15.

Approval of this Stipulation for Discipline as to substance was given by the SPRB on
April 13, 2019. Approval as to form by Disciplinary Counsel is evidenced below. The parties
agree the stipulation is to be submitted to the Adjudicator on behalf of the Disciplinary Board
for consideration pursuant to the terms of BR 3.6.

EXECUTED this 13th day of May, 2020.

/s/ Brent S. Tantillo

Brent S. Tantillo, OSB No. 4258971

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

/s/ Steven B. Ungar

Steven B. Ungar, OSB No. 960029

EXECUTED this 20th day of May, 2020.

OREGON STATE BAR

By: /s/ Courtney C. Dippel

Courtney C. Dippel, OSB No. 022916
Disciplinary Counsel