The trial of Dylan Todd Sullivan, which was scheduled to begin April 18, has been put on hold so his new defense team can prepare.

Sullivan is facing felony sex abuse charges stemming from his time as a high school basketball coach in La Pine.

His former attorney, Scott Upham, made a splash in Deschutes County Circuit Court three weeks ago when he resigned in protest to the judge midhearing and exited the courthouse, leaving Sullivan alone at the defendant’s table.

Upham, who did not respond to numerous voicemail messages seeking comment, has an active license with the Oregon State Bar and has no disciplinary actions to his name.

But the former Washington County district attorney has had a colorful career and drawn criticism, including a pending malpractice lawsuit by a former client.

By the start of the March 21 hearing, Upham, 72, had represented Sullivan for nearly a year and filed numerous motions on his behalf. This culminated in an omnibus hearing to consider subpoenas against six local law enforcement and public officials, including Deschutes County District Attorney John Hummel.

Right after the hearing began, Upham challenged Judge Randy Miller’s qualifications to hear the case and threatened to take the matter to the Oregon Supreme Court. He told Miller he had no choice but to resign the case in protest.

He left during the next recess.

Sullivan’s new lawyer, Whitney P. Boise, of Portland, has until Friday to decide whether to adopt any of Upham’s motions or withdraw them all.

Sullivan is facing eight sex-related charges that he abused two minor victims he coached while he was a staff member at La Pine High School from 2013 to 2014. He was back in court Monday for a status check to determine if he’s being properly represented.

Sullivan, who lives in Forest Grove, appeared in person, while Boise telephoned in from his Portland office.

Sullivan said as he was leaving the courtroom he had no comment on his case.

Upham was elected Washington County district attorney in the late 1970s. He quietly announced his retirement before the 1998 election and had no going-away party, according to a bar complaint by a former co-worker.

In 1999, several months after his retirement, Upham was arrested in his Oak Hills neighborhood on suspicion of driving under the influence of intoxicants, criminal mischief and hit-and-run. He’d driven onto a neighbor’s lawn and bushes and fled the scene, according to news reports from the time.

He was eligible for diversion due to his otherwise clean criminal record and avoided serious charges. He kept his bar card and was allowed to continue practicing law in Oregon.

He was contacted by law enforcement again when he and a fellow attorney were allegedly drunkenly arguing. He reportedly asked the deputy, “Do you know who I am?” Charges were never brought in that matter.

In 2013, Roger Hanlon, a chief deputy district attorney at Washington County, filed an Oregon State Bar complaint against Upham alleging numerous issues with Upham’s competence.

Upham’s alleged professional incompetence bears several distinctive hallmarks, according to Hanlon’s complaint and one filed by tech executive Scott Kveton. The complaints assert that Upham will attempt to bury his opponents in frivolous requests, have the authority removed to delay proceedings and file retaliatory motions when other lawyers issue formal complaints.

“Mr. Upham’s unprofessional actions seem to arise in every case in which he involves himself,” Hanlon wrote in his complaint.

Kveton, onetime CEO of Urban Airship, had been accused by a client of Upham’s of sexual harassment. Criminal charges were never brought against him, and civil suits were settled out of court. Upham then sued Kveton for defamation, and the two have been enmeshed in legal drama since.

Kveton wrote in his 2016 bar complaint that Upham had filed 19 retaliatory bar complaints against other lawyers.

“The common denominator in all of these cases and situations is Upham,” Kveton writes in his request to have Upham disbarred. “He is unable to practice ethically, period. He distracts from his own behavior by casting serious and unsupported allegations against others.”

Neither complaint led to sanctions by the bar against Upham.

In October, Upham filed suit against Hummel after Hummel twice refused to disclose contact information for Sullivan’s alleged minor victims. Hummel had provided Upham with a list with the names of the state’s intended witnesses, but not additional information Upham requested.

Judge Miller dismissed Upham’s suit in January.

Upham still has a similar suit pending against Travis Hampton, superintendent of Oregon State Police.

About an hour after he stormed out of the March 21 hearing, Upham emailed Miller in an attempt to prove a legal point.

A judicial assistant replied to him, stating that by not copying his opposing counsel on the email, Upham was attempting to have “improper ex parte communication” with the judge — a violation of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct.

Miller may yet hold Upham in contempt of court, either criminally or civilly. And Upham could still be sanctioned by the Oregon bar.

In September, Kveton wrote to the state bar warning that Upham had taken a serious sex abuse case in Central Oregon — Dylan Sullivan’s — while Kveton’s bar complaint was being investigated.

“If I cannot appeal to the bar from a logical standpoint then maybe I can from an ethical humanistic standpoint: This is awful,” Kveton wrote. “Even if this man is guilty, he deserves competent advice and with Upham’s advice he will spend twice the time in prison he should have.”

— Reporter: 541-383-0325, gandrews@bendbulletin.com