Oregon State Bar Bulletin — MAY 2002
| Discipline |
Note: More than 11,300 attorneys are eligible to practice law in Oregon. Some of them share the same name or similar names. All discipline reports should be read carefully for names, addresses and bar numbers.
L. BRITTON EADIE
OSB #87136
West Linn
3-year suspension
On Dec. 6, 2001, the supreme court suspended West Linn lawyer, L. Britton
Eadie, for a period of three years for violation of DR 1-102(A)(3) (conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); DR 1-102(A)(4)
(conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); DR 7-102(A)(5)
(knowingly making a false statement of law or fact); DR 7-110(B) (ex
parte contact with the court); DR 6-101(A) (lack of competence); DR
7-106(C)(1) (stating or eluding to a matter that will not be supported
by admissible evidence); and DR 7-106(C)(7) (intentionally or habitually
violating an established rule of procedure or evidence). The suspension
is effective beginning Feb. 4, 2002.
The court ruled on Eadie's conduct in four client matters. In the first
matter, Eadie settled a case with an unrepresented party. The settlement
agreement did not provide for an award of costs, even though Eadie intended
to recover costs. Thereafter, Eadie sought and obtained a default judgment
for costs. The court found that Eadie's failure to disclose to the adverse
party his intent to obtain a judgment for costs when he settled the
case, and thereafter, was a failure to correct a false impression created
by non-disclosure of a material fact.
In the second matter, Eadie caused a judge to sign an order by knowingly
misrepresenting to the judge that the form of order accurately reflected
the judge's prior ruling regarding rescheduling a case. Eadie also filed
two motions to disqualify judges in this case without serving the motions
on opposing counsel.
In a third matter, Eadie represented the plaintiff in a personal injury
matter that went to trial. Eadie was not prepared for the trial, repeatedly
ignored the court's evidentiary rulings, repeatedly attempted to inject
the issue of the defendant's insurance at the trial, repeatedly posed
questions to witnesses seeking hearsay or other incompetent evidence,
made multiple and unfounded objections during the trial, and moved for
a new trial after accepting satisfaction of judgment on his client's
behalf.
In the fourth matter, Eadie assigned an inexperienced associate to handle
the defense of motions for summary judgment. The associate had never
responded to a motion for summary judgment, and Eadie failed to properly
supervise the associate's work, resulting in summary judgment being
granted to the opposing party.
In arriving at the sanction, the court considered Eadie's substantial
experience in the practice of law and his failure to acknowledge the
wrongful nature of any of his misconduct.
THOMAS J. DITTON
OSB #74078
Hermiston
Public reprimand
On March 11, 2002, the disciplinary board approved a stipulation reprimanding
Hermiston lawyer Thomas J. Ditton for violating DR 9-101(A) (failure
to maintain client funds in trust), DR 9-101(C)(3) (failure to maintain
records and render appropriate accounting) and DR 9-101(C)(4) (failure
to promptly deliver to a client funds the client is entitled to receive).
Ditton was retained to represent a client in a dissolution of marriage
proceeding. The written fee agreement provided for the client to pay
Ditton a minimum attorney fee plus $350 for costs. Ditton received those
funds from his client and deposited them into his lawyer trust account.
Shortly thereafter, Ditton expended $91 in costs on behalf of the client.
A few weeks later, before Ditton completed the matter, he transferred
the remaining funds he had received from the client into his general
business account. Ditton also failed to render an appropriate accounting
to his client. After the dissolution of marriage proceeding was completed,
the client asked Ditton for a refund of any unused costs. Ditton failed
to promptly refund the unused costs to the client.
In another matter, Ditton was retained to set aside an order requiring
a client to pay child support. Ditton orally agreed to represent the
client for a flat fee of $700. Ditton received those funds from his
client and deposited them into his lawyer trust account.
Ditton filed a petition to set aside the support order. Thereafter,
before Ditton completed the matter, he transferred the funds he had
received from his client into his general business account. Ditton also
failed to render an appropriate accounting to his client.
MYER AVEDOVECH
OSB #65007
Bend
Form B resignation
Effective April 1, 2002, the Oregon Supreme Court accepted the Form
B resignation of Bend lawyer Myer Avedovech. At the time of the resignation,
a formal disciplinary proceeding was pending against Avedovech for multiple
violations of DR 5-101(A) (self-interest conflict) and DR 5-110(A) (sexual
relations with clients). He was also charged with violation of DR 1-102(A)(3)
(knowingly engaging in dishonesty and misrepresentation) and DR 1-103(C)
(failing to respond truthfully to the disciplinary authorities).
Avedovech was admitted to practice in 1965. In the resignation, Avedovech
stated that client files and records have been or will be placed in
the custody of Bend lawyer Jonathan W. Hayner.
CHRIS COVERT
OSB #97045
Portland
Public reprimand
On March 26, 2002, the disciplinary board approved a stipulation reprimanding
Portland lawyer Chris Covert for violating DR 2-110(A)(1) (failure to
properly withdraw from employment), DR 5-105(C) (former client conflict
of interest) and DR 5-105(E) (current client conflict of interest).
Covert represented both creditor and debtor when he met with them and
then prepared an agreement between them. When the debtor failed to make
payments pursuant to the agreement, the creditor retained another lawyer
who obtained a judgment against the debtor and issued a writ of garnishment.
After the writ of garnishment was served on the debtor's employer, Covert
undertook to represent the debtor and filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy
petition on his behalf. Covert failed to obtain consent after full disclosure
from the creditor and debtor before undertaking to represent the debtor
in connection with the writ of garnishment and bankruptcy proceeding.
At the time Covert undertook to represent the debtor in the writ of
garnishment, he also represented the debtor's employer in other matters.
Covert failed to obtain consent after full disclosure from the debtor
and the debtor's employer before undertaking to represent the debtor
in the writ of garnishment.
Covert subsequently withdrew from representing the debtor in the bankruptcy
proceeding. He failed to obtain permission to withdraw from the bankruptcy
court, as required by local rule.
ROBERT L. McKEE
OSB #54056
Scappoose
Reinstatement granted
On Jan. 10, 2002, the Oregon Supreme Court filed an opinion conditionally
reinstating Robert L. McKee to the practice of law in Oregon. McKee
was reinstated effective Feb. 13, 2002.
McKee sought reinstatement to the practice of law after having served
an 18-month suspension that the court imposed in July 1993. See In re
McKee, 316 Or. 114, 849 P.2d 509 (1993) (McKee II). McKee did not immediately
apply for reinstatement because of health problems. When his health
improved he filed an application for reinstatement. The bar recommended
that the application be denied. McKee petitioned the court to review
the bar's recommendation, and the court referred that petition to the
disciplinary board. After a hearing, a trial panel of the disciplinary
board recommended that McKee be reinstated on the condition that he
complete 60 hours of minimum continuing legal education (MCLE) credits
during his first year of reinstatement.
A majority of the court agreed with the trial panel and approved McKee's
application for reinstatement conditioned on his successful completion
of 45 hours of MCLE courses during the first three months of reinstatement
before he actively practices law and an additional 15 hours of MCLE
courses during the first 12 months following reinstatement. Two justices
joined in a dissent finding that the record did not demonstrate that
McKee had overcome the characteristics that lead to the previous misconduct.
DIANA M. SHERA TAYLOR
OSB #95143
St. Helens
Public reprimand
Pursuant to a stipulation for discipline approved by the disciplinary
board on March 13, 2002, St. Helens lawyer Diana M. Shera Taylor was
publicly reprimanded for violation of DR 6-101(B) (neglect of a legal
matter).
Shera Taylor stipulated that in October 1999, she undertook to represent
a wife in the settlement of her intestate husband's small estate. The
decedent had two sons from a prior marriage who had a legal claim to
the estate but had previously agreed to disclaim their interests. The
sons later expressed reluctance to disclaim their interests in the estate
without receiving further information regarding estate assets and the
wife's financial situation. Although Shera Taylor hoped to persuade
the sons to disclaim their interests, over a period of 19 months, she
did not communicate adequately with the sons and took insufficient action
to close the estate. Shera Taylor also failed to respond to numerous
telephone contacts from her client concerning the status of the estate.
The sanction was determined after considering that Shera Taylor had
no prior disciplinary record, she did not have a dishonest or selfish
motive and cooperated with the bar's investigation.
WILLIAM P. KOONTZ
OSB #78056
Cottage Grove
Public reprimand
Pursuant to a stipulation for discipline approved by the disciplinary
board on March 26, 2002, Cottage Grove lawyer William P. Koontz was
publicly reprimanded for violating DR 3-102(A) (sharing legal fees with
a non-lawyer).
The charges arose out of Koontz's association with a non-lawyer who
was engaged in the business of selling revocable living trusts. The
non-lawyer met with people who had expressed interest in purchasing
living trusts, advised them of the advantages of living trusts and related
estate planning documents and reviewed and recorded the clients' financial
information. The financial information was to be used by Koontz in preparing
the trusts and related documents. The non-lawyer also entered into the
agreements with the clients for his and Koontz's services and collected
both his fee and Koontz's fee.
In arriving at a sanction, the stipulation recited that Koontz has substantial
experience in the practice of law, but has no prior disciplinary record.
MATTHEW W. DERBY
OSB #94291
Roseburg
Public reprimand
Pursuant to a stipulation for discipline approved by the disciplinary
board on March 21, 2002, Roseburg lawyer Matthew W. Derby was publicly
reprimanded for violating DR 6-101(B) (neglect of a legal matter) and
DR 9-101(C)(4) (failure to promptly refund client funds).
The disciplinary charges arose when Derby was contacted by a California
lawyer to vacate a default judgment that had been entered against the
California lawyer's client. Derby was paid for his initial consultation
and preliminary legal services. Later, the California lawyer advised
Derby that his client wished to pursue proceedings to vacate the default
judgment and paid Derby a retainer, which was deposited in Derby's trust
account. Thereafter, Derby did nothing further on the matter, did not
advise the California lawyer he did not intend to undertake the representation
and did not respond to letters inquiring about the status of the matter.
In one letter, Derby was requested to return the retainer if he did
not intend to represent the client, but Derby did not refund the unearned
fees until after a complaint was made to the bar.
In arriving at a sanction, the stipulation recited that Derby had no
prior disciplinary record and did not act with a dishonest or selfish
motive.