You are on page 1of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION _________________________________________________________________ In Re Hummasti, (Original Oregon

US District Court Case No. 06-CV-1710-BR). In the matter of the Suspension of Milo Petranovich by the Oregon State Bar and the Resignation of Milo Petranovich and in and for the State Bar of California. Comes now Hummasti the Plaintiff in the above referenced matter and hereby Complains of the Unprofessional Conduct of Milo Petranovich resulting in the Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Civil Action before this Court and the Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motions (DOC #’s 166, 167) “For Safe Passage, Witness Protection and New Counsel.” This Court filed an ORDER (DOC # 168) on or about, 20 August 2012 Denying Plaintiff’s Motions with the “Opinion” that Plaintiff was REPRESENTED by Counsel of Record (Milo Petranovich) and as such Local Rules 83-9b prohibited Plaintiff from filing her own pleadings (Opinion, @pp1). In July 2012 Petranovich filed a stipulation with the California State Bar which, in part, he admits to having failed to timely withdraw in 2008 from his Representation of Hummasti in the above referenced Case No. (06-CV-1710-BR). In August 2012 Plaintiff filed the aforesaid Motions (166, 167). In September 2012 Petranovich Filed his “NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL” in Hummasti 06-CV-1710-BR, following this Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motions (166, 167). Having filed his stipulation with the Oregon State Bar in 2011 leading to his 60 days suspension in 2012, Petranovich failed to stipulate or omitted to the Oregon State Bar that he had failed to file a timely Notice of Withdrawal and his stipulation to the California State Bar that he failed to file a timely Notice of Withdrawal in July 2012 after his 60 days suspension had expired shows a pattern whereby Petranovich has engaged in a course of unprofessionalism and unethical misconduct by repeatedly disregarding the potential injury to Plaintiff Hummasti. While Petranovich still has an ethical and professional obligation under the rules of the Oregon State Bar to appraise both the Court and Hummasti of the State Bar Proceedings and of his stipulated admissions to both the Oregon and California State Bar, that his failings may be remedied in this court, he has failed to do so. In respect thereto, Plaintiff Hummasti hereby requests of this Court that as a measure of censure of Petranovich, Petranovich be disbarred by the Oregon Supreme Court and this Court provide other Counsel to Represent Hummasti in the matters before it.

Respectfully Submitted, John Mauritz Hummasti Portland, Oregon 503-750-8296