![]() GWM was to use the monies to purchase from banks interests in mortgages. ![]() In early 1969 GWM formulated a program whereby unions and health and welfare and pension trusts, which were jointly managed by employer and labor trustees and established pursuant to collective bargaining agreements, would invest trust funds with GWM. The remaining four charges are based upon a contention that the accused from May, 1969, to November, 1974, had an attorney-client relationship with Great Western Mortgage Company (hereinafter "GWM") and that he was guilty of misconduct with respect to his representation of four other separate clients, whose interests were adverse to those of GWM. Our disposition of the specific charges establishes that the accused is not guilty of the eighth charge. In this court the Bar urges that the accused be found guilty of the first, second, third and fourth specific charges and of the eighth charge (the aggregate conduct charge). The matter is now before this court pursuant to ORS 9.535(3) and Sections 47 and 48, Rules, for disposal pursuant to ORS 9.535(4). The Review Board recommended that the accused be reprimanded. The Review Board agreed with the Trial Board on the disposition of all charges except the third and found the accused guilty of that charge. Pursuant to Section 46.2, Rules of Procedure Relative to: Admission, Discipline, Resignation and Reinstatement (hereinafter "Rules"), the matter was transmitted to the Review Board, which rendered and filed its written decision. In its statement in partial opposition to the report of the Trial Board, the Bar affirmatively stated that it did not oppose the Trial Board's finding of not guilty on the sixth charge. The Trial Board found the accused not guilty on the remaining charges. Upon motion of the Bar, the fifth and seventh charges were dismissed at the Trial Board level. The letter was as follows: "6/23/76 "How can a lawyer (Herb Galton) represent both sides in a transaction that involves the give-away of corporate assets? Is that ethical? "A concerned union member"įollowing its investigation the Bar instituted this disciplinary proceeding in which the accused was originally charged with unethical conduct in seven specifics and with an eighth charge that accused's course of conduct, in the aggregate, was such as to render him unfit to practice law. This is a disciplinary proceeding originating from an anonymous letter to the Oregon State Bar. Feltz, of Casey, Palmer, Feltz & Sherry, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for the Oregon State Bar.īefore DENECKE, C.J., and TONGUE, HOWELL, LENT, LINDE and TANZER, JJ. ![]() Bradley, of Schwenn, Bradley, Batchelor & Brisbee, Hillsboro, argued the cause and filed the briefs for accused.Įugene E. 565 In re Complaint As to the Conduct of Herbert B.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |