Opinion ID: 834852
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Dishonesty: RPC 8.4(a)(3) and Former DR 1-102(A)(3)

Text: The Bar also alleged, and the trial panel generally agreed, that the accused acted dishonestly and in violation of RPC 8.4(a)(3) and former DR 1-102(A)(3) by attempting to obtain a double recoverythat is, he tried to recover more from the parties named in the complaint that he filed in the dissolution proceeding than the maximum amount to which he plausibly was entitled based on the allegations in his complaint. As noted, the accused sought to recover the attorney fees due to him from husband (which was the basis for his attorney's lien), plus interest, plus the fees accrued in seeking to recover the fees originally due. The Bar asserts that the accused's motive in refusing to disclose the settlement agreement with the Chicago Title defendantsincluding the settlement amount that those defendants had paidwas to keep the remaining defendants in the dark about that amount, in the hope that the total amount that the accused eventually recovered through settlement or litigation would exceed the amount to which he was entitled. If that had occurred, the accused would have obtained, at least in part, a double recovery. The Bar concedes that there is no direct evidence that the accused attempted such a double recovery. It instead asks that we infer from the settlement agreement, and from the accused's efforts to prevent discovery of the agreement, that the accused schemed to recover twice on his lien. The Bar also points out that Judge Herndon, in ruling that the Chicago Title defendants' payment satisfied the attorney lien and awarding wife attorney fees, payable by the accused, commented that, in his view, the accused was attempting to double dip. The accused argues, not surprisingly, that, although he sought full recovery of the amount that he reasonably thought was due to him, he did not intend to recover more than that amount. Moreover, it is undisputed that no double recovery actually occurred. For the reasons discussed above, the Bar did not prove that the accused made a knowing misrepresentation to the court. Moreover, the accused released the settlement agreement shortly after judgment had been entered in the lien case and Judge Boutin had stated that the agreement may be released. That leaves the inferences from the accused's conduct throughout the proceeding that, the Bar argues, purportedly demonstrate his intention to obtain a double recoveryor, at least, more than he arguably was entitled to recover. Although one possible inference that could be drawn from the accused's conduct was that he was hiding the amount that he had received in settlement in the hope of a double recovery, it is just as plausible to infer that he declined to disclose the amount as a negotiation tactic in an effort to recover as much as possible from the remaining defendants, but not more than the amount he was owed. The weak and qualified inference that the Bar urges us to draw from the accused's conduct does not constitute proof by clear and convincing evidence of dishonesty on the accused's part. Stated differently, the accused had plausible legal arguments for seeking attorney fees for his efforts to foreclose on his attorney's lien and collect the amount that was owed to him; for settling with the Chicago Title defendants in an agreement that characterized the settlement payment as applying first to the fees incurred in the litigation and only then to the satisfaction of the lien; and for declining to disclose the settlement terms to the remaining defendants. Although the settlement agreement's purported application of the settlement payment was not binding on the courtas the accused learned when Judge Herndon rejected the accused's apportionment argument and made the accused pay wife's attorney feesthe steps taken in pursuit of settlement and of his attorney fee claim had a basis in law, even if the accused's claim for fees under ORS 20.105(1) was unlikely to succeed in litigation. See Claussen, 331 Or. at 267-68, 14 P.3d 586 (Although in hindsight, the accused's opinion may be incorrect, his legal research gave him some basis for making the representation.). Indeed, the Bar acknowledges that there was nothing improper about the settlement agreement itself. As discussed below, an attorney may not be disciplined for asserting plausible positions in litigation, assuming that the positions were not asserted for a clearly impermissible purpose. The Bar has not proved by clear and convincing evidence that the accused engaged in dishonest conduct in violation of RPC 8.4(a)(3) and former DR 1-102(A)(3).