Case ID: or_327/html/0522-01.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 September 10,
    complaint dismissed September 23, 1998
    In re Complaint as to the Conduct of DENNIS M. ODMAN, Accused.
    
    (OSB 95-98; SC S44782)
    964 P2d 1007
    Wayne Mackeson, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for the accused.
    Mary A. Cooper, Disciplinary Counsel, Lake Oswego, argued the cause and filed the briefs for the Oregon State Bar.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

In this disciplinary proceeding, the Oregon State Bar (Bar) alleges that the accused violated DR 5-105(E) (prohibiting multiple client representation that results in a likely conflict of interest unless the clients consent after full disclosure) and DR 6-101(A) (requiring competent representation) in the course of creating a revocable trust. Following a hearing, the trial panel of the Disciplinary Board filed its written decision concluding that the accused was not guilty of the alleged misconduct. ORS 9.536(1); BR 10.1. The Bar seeks review and asks the court to reject the trial panel’s decision and to impose a sanction.

This court reviews the matter de novo on the record. ORS 9.536(3); BR 10.6. The Bar has the burden of establishing misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. BR 5.2.

This court has reviewed the record and has considered the arguments of the parties. The court concludes that the Bar has not proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that the accused committed the alleged disciplinary rule violations. A detailed explanation of the basis for the court’s conclusion would not serve the interests of the parties or the public.

Complaint dismissed.