In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Hartman

Oregon Supreme Court

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Hartman

25 P.3d 958, 332 Or. 241, 2001 Ore. LEXIS 372

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedJune 14, 2001

DocketOSB 94-219A; SC S45712; OSB 94-219B; SC S45713

StatusPublished

This text of 25 P.3d 958 (In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Hartman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Hartman, 25 P.3d 958, 332 Or. 241, 2001 Ore. LEXIS 372 (Or. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

*243 PER CURIAM

In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, a majority of a trial panel of the Disciplinary Board found that the accused lawyers, Gregory A. Hartman and Elizabeth Ann McKanna (collectively, “the accused”), did not violate Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule (DR) 1-102(A)(3) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); DR 2-110(B)(2) (requiring withdrawal from employment if lawyer knows, or it is obvious, that employment will result in violation of disciplinary rule); DR 7-102(A)(7) (prohibiting lawyer from counseling or assisting client’s illegal or fraudulent conduct); DR 7-102(B)(l) (requiring lawyer to call on client to rectify fraud); and DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to administration of justice). The Oregon State Bar (Bar) alleged that the accused violated those ethical rules while representing a client in an employment dispute. The Bar seeks review of that trial panel decision. We review the record de novo. Bar Rules of Procedure (BR) 10.6.

Upon de novo review, although the question is a close one, we ultimately agree with the majority of the trial panel that the Bar failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the accused committed any of the charged disciplinary violations. Because the facts of this matter are so specific to this case', a discussion of those facts and the reasons for our conclusion would not benefit the public, bench, or bar.

Complaints dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*243 PER CURIAM

In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, a majority of a trial panel of the Disciplinary Board found that the accused lawyers, Gregory A. Hartman and Elizabeth Ann McKanna (collectively, “the accused”), did not violate Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule (DR) 1-102(A)(3) (prohibiting conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); DR 2-110(B)(2) (requiring withdrawal from employment if lawyer knows, or it is obvious, that employment will result in violation of disciplinary rule); DR 7-102(A)(7) (prohibiting lawyer from counseling or assisting client’s illegal or fraudulent conduct); DR 7-102(B)(l) (requiring lawyer to call on client to rectify fraud); and DR 1-102(A)(4) (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to administration of justice). The Oregon State Bar (Bar) alleged that the accused violated those ethical rules while representing a client in an employment dispute. The Bar seeks review of that trial panel decision. We review the record de novo. Bar Rules of Procedure (BR) 10.6.

Upon de novo review, although the question is a close one, we ultimately agree with the majority of the trial panel that the Bar failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the accused committed any of the charged disciplinary violations. Because the facts of this matter are so specific to this case', a discussion of those facts and the reasons for our conclusion would not benefit the public, bench, or bar.

Complaints dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 P.3d 958, 332 Or. 241, 2001 Ore. LEXIS 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-complaint-as-to-the-conduct-of-hartman-or-2001.