Opinion ID: 834852
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Alleged Frivolous and Unwarranted Legal Positions: RPC 3.1 and Former DR 1-102(A)(2)

Text: We turn to the Bar's assertion that the trial panel should have found violations of RPC 3.1 and former DR 7-102(A)(2). RPC 3.1 provides, [A] lawyer shall not knowingly bring or defend a proceeding [or] assert a position therein    unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous   . Similarly, former DR 7-102(A)(2) provided that a lawyer shall not    knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law   . RPC 1.0(h) defines knowingly as denot[ing] actual knowledge of the fact in question. See also In re Merkel, 341 Or. 142, 148, 138 P.3d 847 (2006) (requiring actual knowledge to prove knowing conduct under the Disciplinary Rules). The trial panel correctly found that the Bar did not prove violations of RPC 3.1 and former DR 7-102(A)(2). The Bar's primary contention with respect to that chargeother than the alleged misrepresentations regarding the settlement agreement, which we have discussed in detail aboveis that the accused made a frivolous argument that disclosure of the settlement was not required by former ORS 18.455. As noted earlier, that statute required that a covenant not to sue given in good faith to one of two or more persons liable in tort for the same injury must be disclosed to all persons against whom the claimant makes claims. The accused argued that his complaint asserted different claims against the various defendants and that he did not view the Chicago Title defendants as joint tortfeasors with the nonsettling defendants. Accordingly, in his view, the settlement was not a settlement with some but not all of the persons liable in tort for the same injury, and former ORS 18.455 therefore did not apply. Based on the complaint that the accused filed, the settlement agreement, and the testimony in the record, we conclude that the accused's proffered interpretation of former ORS 18.455, as applied to the facts of his case, was plausible. We need not determine whether his interpretation was ultimately correct or notit is sufficient to conclude, as we do, that it was not frivolous or unwarranted within the meaning of the disciplinary rules. In addition, of course, the parties litigated that very issue before Judge Boutin, and the accused prevailed. The trial panel correctly rejected the Bar's claim that the accused violated RPC 3.1 and former DR 7-102(A)(2).