Opinion ID: 835208
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prior Oregon case law

Text: As this court has explained on several occasions, a finding that a lawyer has engaged in a conflict of interest in violation of DR 5-105, standing alone, typically justifies a 30-day suspension. Knappenberger I, 338 Or. at 361, 108 P.3d 1161; In re Hockett, 303 Or. 150, 164, 734 P.2d 877 (1987). However, where discipline is imposed for a sole conflict of interest violation, there have been circumstances in which this court has imposed the lesser sanction of a reprimand, see, e.g., In re Kinsey, 294 Or. 544, 660 P.2d 660 (1983) (attorney who engaged in conflict of interest given reprimand), or suspensions lengthier than 30 days. See In re Wittemyer, 328 Or. 448, 980 P.2d 148 (1999) (attorney who engaged in conflict of interest causing actual injury, even in absence of prior disciplinary history, suspended for four months). Here, the accused not only engaged in a conflict of interest, he also charged his client an excessive fee. The dual violations and the aggravating factors that we have described militate for more than a 30-day suspension. The accused's cooperative attitude and our difficulty in discerning that the accused caused actual economic injury militate against a 90-day suspension. We conclude that a 60-day suspension is appropriate. The accused is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 60 days, commencing 60 days from the date of filing of this decision.