In re Complaint as to the Conduct of Montgomery

687 P.2d 156, 297 Or. 752, 1984 Ore. LEXIS 1645
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided September 5, 1984·No. OSB 81-30; SC S30676·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this disciplinary matter the accused, Kenneth Montgomery, charged with violating DR 5-105, DR 6-101 (A)(3) and DR 6-101(A)(l), was found guilty by the Trial Board of violating solely DR 6-101(A)(3). The Disciplinary Review Board found the accused not guilty of violating DR 6-101(A)(3) and (A)(1), but guilty of violating DR 5-105.1 The relevant facts concerning the accused’s conduct are set out in the case of In re Odman, 297 Or 744, 687 P2d 153 (1984).

We find that the accused knew he was representing Lunning and that his associate Odman was representing the estate against which Lunning was making claims. He knew or should have known of the basic potential conflicts of interest between the two clients. The accused violated DR 5-105. In re Porter, 283 Or 517, 584 P2d 744 (1978).

The accused, not being responsible for Odman’s inadequacies and having no control over the Echeverría estate is not guilty of violating DR 6-101 (A) (3) or (A)(1).

The accused, being guilty of violating DR 5-105, is publicly reprimanded. The Oregon State Bar is awarded its actual and necessary costs and disbursements. ORS 9.536(4).

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

In re Complaint as to the Conduct of Montgomery, 687 P.2d 156, 297 Or. 752, 1984 Ore. LEXIS 1645 (Or. 1984).

687 P.2d 156 (In re Complaint as to the Conduct of Montgomery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Moore
703 P.2d 961 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1985)