7/29/2019 In RE Hummasti.

1/2

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 theOregon 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 Plaintiffs

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 Plaintiffs Motions with the Opinion that

Plaintiff was REPRESENTED by Counsel of Record (MiloPetranovich) 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 Courts Order

denying Plaintiffs 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.

7/29/2019 In RE Hummasti.

2/2

Respectfully Submitted,

John Mauritz Hummasti

Portland, Oregon

503-750-8296