he did not violate DR 7-110(B). First, the accused, like everyone else, is presumed to know the law. See In re Devers, 328 Or 230, 241, 974 P2d 191 (1999) (so stating). Moreover, as we have explained, the purpose of DR 7-110(B) is to prevent the appearance or the effect of granting an undue advantage to one party. Smith, 295 Or at 759. The appearance or effect of undue advantage occurs regardless of the mental state of a lawyer who fails to comply with the requirements of the rule. Although, as we explain later in this opinion, an accused’s mental state is relevant in assessing the appropriate sanction for a violation of that rule, a mistaken belief that the lawyer was not required to provide notice or service is not a defense to a charge under DR 7-110(B). SeeEadie, 333 Or at 59 (<HOLDING>). In this proceeding, the accused’s only
holding misplaced reliance on statute to excuse service not defense to violation of dr 7110b holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense holding in the context of a non  212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding that each class member was not required to prove justifiable reliance when an inference of reliance arises if a materially false representation was made to persons whose acts thereafter were consistent with reliance upon the representations