Robert Parker Jr., a Portland attorney who received a formal apology from Oregon lawmakers after a decades-old bar-admission fight, is now facing a new challenge from four Multnomah County judges who question whether he is competent to practice. The judges’ complaint comes as Parker remains under a separate three-year Oregon State Bar probation after disciplinary findings involving client representation, fees and records. The result is an unusually sharp collision between a legislative declaration that Parker was wronged and fresh allegations about his work as a lawyer.
According to OregonLive, judges Michael Greenlick, Heidi Moawad, Jenna Plank and Shelley Russell filed a misconduct complaint alleging Parker was repeatedly unprepared, late to court, absent from appearances and lacking courtroom decorum. The complaint also alleges that he failed to review electronic case files before declaring himself ready for trial, failed to promptly tell a client about a prosecution plea offer and compromised client confidentiality.
Parker has rejected the allegations as spurious and ill-conceived, describing the complaint in colorful terms as a “menagerie of manure,” OregonLive reported. He plans to send letters asking the House and Senate judiciary committees to consider impeaching the four judges, while Sen. Lew Frederick, who led the 2021 apology effort, said he had not reviewed the latest complaint and could not assess whether its allegations were valid.
What The Oregon State Bar Found
The Oregon State Bar’s July bulletin says its disciplinary board approved a stipulation on March 19, 2026, imposing a 90-day suspension that was fully stayed during three years of probation. Parker was found to have violated professional-conduct rules involving competent representation, client communication, excessive fees and the handling and return of client property, according to the Oregon State Bar Bulletin.
The discipline involved three client matters. In one, Parker collected a $25,000 advance fee, did not place it in trust, arrived unprepared for a dissolution trial and later failed to account for the money or pursue promised post-judgment work. In another, he accepted advance fees in a guardianship and dissolution matter before withdrawing amid conflicts, while a third case involved alleged communication failures, an unreturned retainer and missing medical records.
Parker’s probation is not a suspension from active practice. The bar requires him to consult practice-management attorneys, meet monthly with a probation supervisor, hire a bookkeeper and complete 15 hours of continuing legal education focused on civil litigation basics, according to the same bulletin.
Why The 2021 Apology Still Matters
Oregon lawmakers issued Parker an official apology in 2021, saying he had suffered 31 years of harm from racism and institutional bias after being denied admission to the state bar. The enrolled resolution found that Parker had engaged in no wrongdoing or unethical conduct and urged the Oregon Supreme Court to revisit the earlier decisions and admit him, according to the Oregon Legislative Assembly.
The apology followed a long-running dispute over Parker’s 1990 bar exam and character-and-fitness review. In a 1992 opinion, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld the denial of his admission after the Board of Bar Examiners raised concerns about whether he met the state’s good-moral-character standard, including allegations that he impersonated a legislator during a telephone call, according to the court decision reproduced by Oregon case records.
Parker was ultimately admitted to the Oregon bar in December 2021. But that admission did not shield him from later professional discipline: A separate 2024 bar proceeding resulted in a public reprimand for conflicts of interest after he represented clients with opposing interests in a protective proceeding, according to the Oregon State Bar’s disciplinary record.
What Happens Next
The judges’ complaint is an allegation, not a final finding that Parker violated the rules. The Oregon State Bar is also investigating four additional misconduct complaints against him, and its disciplinary rules allow the bar to seek revocation of probation if he violates its terms.
For now, Parker remains permitted to practice while the probation conditions are in effect. The public record therefore carries two very different official judgments at once: a legislative apology declaring that Parker was wronged by Oregon’s institutions, and disciplinary proceedings now questioning whether he has consistently met the professional standards required of an Oregon lawyer.
