Opinion ID: 835242
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Response to the Bar's Inquiry into the Holec Matters

Text: The Bar received a complaint from the Wallowa County District Attorney concerning the accused's conduct regarding the Holec sisters. The Bar notified the accused of that complaint, by letter, and asked the accused to respond to the allegations. The accused did so. The accused's response, however, raised additional concerns relating to the accused's representation of the sisters. Accordingly, the Bar sent a letter to the accused requesting additional information. In that letter, the Bar requested that the accused respond to three specific concerns: (1) the circumstances of the 1997 loan and its terms, and whether that loan had been repaid; (2) the circumstances of the May 2003 note, its relation to the 1997 loan, and its execution in conformance with full disclosure as required by DR 10-101(B), and whether that loan had been repaid; and (3) the legal authority for the accused's assertion that he was required to comply with DR 10-101(B) only when Stephanie moved forward with the execution of the will and not when he prepared the will that left a testamentary gift to his wife. [7] The accused refused to provide the information that the Bar requested regarding his debt to Stephanie. He asserted that the Bar lacked jurisdiction because this loan did not involve [his] law practice in any manner[.] That was so, the accused maintained, because Stephanie was not a client at the time of the loan. The accused did provide a response to the Bar's request regarding the preparation of the will containing a gift to his wife. That response, however, was limited. The accused essentially restated that, according to his understanding of the rule, full disclosure and consent was not required before preparing and presenting the will to Stephanie. The Bar wrote yet a third letter to the accused to obtain information and documents regarding the accused's debt to Stephanie. Specifically, the Bar explained its authority to inquire and reasserted its request that the accused explain his debt transactions with Stephanie. The accused wrote the Bar stating that he would provide nothing further on the complaint against him. In that same letter, he added that the Bar's investigation into the complaint was turning into pure harassment. One week later, in calmer reflection, the accused responded further. The accused acknowledged that he gave Stephanie legal advice, pro bono, re[garding] the [Frenches'] collection, her will, and the sale of her house in 2003. However, he did not respond to the specific questions posed by the Bar, i.e., the circumstances of and relationship between the 1997 and 2003 loans. The Bar filed a formal complaint against the accused in December 2005. In his response to that complaint, the accused provided his first substantive explanation of the debt that he and his wife owed to Stephanie. Specifically, the accused explained that the new note was a renewal note for the balance remaining on the original note from 1997. He emphasized that it was not a new loan because Stephanie did not advance any money to the accused in May 2003. He represented that Stephanie was happy with the loan and [that] the interest she was receiving []was generous under the economic circumstances at the time. The accused asserted that DR 5-101(A) and DR 5-104(A) could not apply to renewal notes because, if they did, the rules were unconstitutionally vague and failed to give notice sufficient to satisfy the state and federal constitutions. Additionally, the accused testified at the hearing that he had been unwilling to provide the Bar with information about the debt to Stephanie out of pure Dutch stubbornness. Finally, he also testified that he had documents relating to multiple renewal notes between 1997 and 2003, but chose not to provide them to the Bar.