Case ID: or_332/html/0241-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted November 5, 1999,
    complaints dismissed June 14, 2001
    In re Complaint as to the Conduct of GREGORY A. HARTMAN, Accused. In re Complaint as to the Conduct of ELIZABETH ANN McKANNA, Accused.
    
    (OSB 94-219A; SC S45712
    (Control))
    (OSB 94-219B; SC S45713)
    25 P3d 958
    Thomas M. Christ, Special Counsel, Oregon State Bar, Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for the Oregon State Bar.
    David Markowitz, of Markowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf, P.C., Portland, argued the cause for the accused. With him on the brief was Lynn R. Stafford.
    Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Kulongoski, and Leeson, Justices.
    
    PER CURIAM
    
      
       Van Hoomissen, J., retired December 31,2000, and did not participate in the decision of this case. Durham, Riggs, and De Muniz, JJ., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
    
   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.