Case Name: In re Complaint as to the Conduct of GREGORY A. HARTMAN, Accused. In re Complaint as to the Conduct of ELIZABETH ANN McKANNA, Accused
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2001-06-14
Citations: 332 Or. 241
Docket Number: OSB 94-219A; SC S45712; OSB 94-219B; SC S45713
Parties: In re Complaint as to the Conduct of GREGORY A. HARTMAN, Accused. In re Complaint as to the Conduct of ELIZABETH ANN McKANNA, Accused.
Judges: Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Kulongoski, and Leeson, Justices.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 332
Pages: 241–243

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.