Title: In re Gallagher
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S47248
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: June 1, 2001

Filed: June 1, 2001
1. 	As of November 27, 1996, Driscoll owed the accused
$1,941.40 in attorney fees.

2. 	Following the arbitration, the accused withdrew from
representing Driscoll.  Driscoll retained another lawyer and
filed a request for a trial in circuit court.  The parties
eventually settled the matter, with Driscoll dropping her request
for return of the horse and with Hanna dropping her award of
attorney fees.

3. 	Before the trial panel, the accused argued that the
$810 represented Martinis's effort to compromise on the attorney
fees issue.  The trial panel rejected that argument.  The accused
does not advance such an argument in this court.

4. 	The accused admitted to the LPRC investigators that he
knew that Martinis had made a mistake as to the amounts of the
checks.

5. 	At the outset, we note that we cannot tell from its
opinion the specific theory under which the trial panel concluded
that the accused violated DR 9-101(A).  Its opinion suggests that
the accused should have redeposited the $1,105 that he disbursed
to himself as soon as he became aware of Martinis's dispute.  To
the extent that the trial panel relied on DR 9-101(A)(2),
however, that reliance was misplaced.  DR 9-101(A)(2) provides
that funds belonging in part to a client and in part presently or
potentially to the lawyer must remain in the trust account when
the right of the lawyer to receive them is "disputed by the
client."  (Emphasis added.)  Martinis, who eventually disputed
that the accused and his client were entitled to the funds, was
not the accused's client.  Thus, DR 9-101(A)(2) is inapposite to
this proceeding.

6. 	The Bar also argues that two other aggravating factors
are present in this proceeding, but offers no analysis in that
regard.  We have considered the Bar's arguments and conclude that
they are not well taken.