Case Name: In re Complaint as to the Conduct of ROBERT W. McMENAMIN, Accused
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1994-08-25
Citations: 319 Or. 609
Docket Number: OSB 90-86; SC S40621
Parties: In re Complaint as to the Conduct of ROBERT W. McMENAMIN, Accused.
Judges: PER CURIAM
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 319
Pages: 609–622

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 7; reassigned August 22,
complaint of the Oregon State Bar dismissed August 25, 1994
In re Complaint as to the Conduct of ROBERT W. McMENAMIN, Accused.
(OSB 90-86; SC S40621)
879 P2d 173
Mary A. Cooper, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Oregon. State Bar, Lake Oswego, argued the cause and filed the briefs.
Marvin S. Nepom, Portland, argued the cause and filed a response for the accused.
PER CURIAM
Fadeley, J., concurred and filed an opinion.
Graber, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Carson, C. J., and Gillette, J., joined.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
This is a lawyer disciplinary proceeding. The Oregon State Bar (Bar) charges that the accused had a conflict of interest in violation of DR 5-105(0 (1989). A trial panel of the Disciplinary Board found the accused not guilty. The Bar sought review by this court pursuant to BR 10.1, BR 10.3, and ORS 9.536(1). We review the record de novo. ORS 9.536(3). The Bar has the burden of establishing ethical misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. BR 5.2. Because we conclude that the Bar has not established ethical misconduct by clear and convincing evidence, we adopt the decision of the trial panel. BR 10.6. The Bar's complaint is dismissed. Costs and disbursements to the accused. ORS 9.536(4).
DR 5-105(0 (1989) provided:
"[A] lawyer who has represented a client in a matter shall not subsequently represent another client in the same or a significantly related matter when the interests of the current and former clients are in actual or likely conflict."
That version of the rule did not define the term "significantly related."
BR 10.6 provides:
"The court shall consider each matter de novo upon the record and may adopt, modify or reject the decision of the trial panel or the [Board of Bar Examiners] in whole or in part and thereupon enter an appropriate order. If the court's order adopts the decision of the trial panel or the [Board of Bar Examiners] without opinion, the opinion of the trial panel or the [Board of Bar Examiners] shall stand as a statement of the decision of the court in the matter but not as the opinion of the court."