The Oregon Supreme Court dismissed a professional conduct complaint against attorney Anne-Marie Clark on Dec. 30, ruling in favor of the Portland lawyer who had been charged with knowingly disobeying a court order while serving as trustee of a special needs trust for her intellectually disabled cousin.

The Oregon State Bar had charged Clark with violating Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(c), which prohibits lawyers from "knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists."

The disciplinary case centered on a July 2016 hearing where Clark, who holds Oregon State Bar license No. 110900, was serving as trustee of a special needs trust for her cousin Allen, who has an intellectual disability. According to the Bar's complaint, a trial court judge verbally ordered Clark at the conclusion of the hearing to electronically deposit $20 per month into Allen's bank account. Clark failed to make these monthly deposits, forming the basis for the ethics charge.

Clark disputed both the legal and factual foundations of the complaint. Her defense team, led by attorney Amber Bevacqua-Lynott of Buchalter, P.C. in Portland, argued that a knowing violation of a verbal court order falls outside the scope of RPC 3.4(c). Clark also contested the Bar's version of what the judge actually ordered during the 2016 hearing.

While Clark acknowledged that she did not provide Allen with $20 per month, she denied that the judge ordered her to do so. Instead, Clark maintained that the court's order addressed only the method she should use to make cash distributions to Allen. According to Clark's interpretation, the judge ordered that when she distributes funds to Allen, she should use electronic deposit rather than written checks, not that she must make regular monthly payments of a specific amount.

Clark further argued that even if the judge had ordered monthly $20 payments, any violation of such an order would not constitute a knowing violation under the professional conduct rule. This defense strategy challenged both the scope of RPC 3.4(c) and the factual predicate for the disciplinary charge.

The case proceeded through the Oregon State Bar's disciplinary process, with Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Susan Cournoyer of Tigard representing the Bar. A trial panel of the Disciplinary Board initially heard the case and issued an opinion on Jan. 10, 2025. The matter then came before the Oregon Supreme Court en banc for review of the disciplinary board's decision.

Oral arguments took place before the state's highest court on Sept. 19, 2025, with both sides presenting their positions on the interpretation of professional conduct rules and the specific facts surrounding the alleged court order violation.

The Supreme Court's per curiam opinion, issued without identifying a specific author, ultimately sided with Clark and dismissed the complaint entirely. The brief ruling did not elaborate on the court's reasoning, but the dismissal represents a complete victory for the respondent attorney.

The case highlights the complexities that can arise in attorney disciplinary proceedings, particularly when they involve verbal court orders and questions about the scope of professional conduct rules. Special needs trusts, which are designed to benefit individuals with disabilities while preserving their eligibility for government benefits, often involve detailed court oversight and specific requirements for trustees.

For Clark, the dismissal ends what had been a lengthy disciplinary process that began with conduct allegedly occurring in 2016. The case demonstrates the importance of clear communication between courts and attorneys, particularly regarding verbal orders that may later become the subject of disciplinary proceedings.

The ruling also underscores the high burden faced by state bars in proving knowing violations of court orders, especially when the content and scope of those orders are disputed. Professional conduct Rule 3.4(c) requires proof that an attorney "knowingly" disobeyed a tribunal's obligation, a standard that can be difficult to meet when the underlying order is ambiguous or contested.

The dismissal by Oregon's highest court represents the final resolution of the disciplinary matter, as the Supreme Court's ruling cannot be appealed. Clark can now continue practicing law without the cloud of pending disciplinary proceedings, while the case may serve as precedent for future disputes involving verbal court orders and professional conduct violations.