Opinion ID: 834852
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the trial panel decision

Text: The trial panel found violations of three disciplinary rules, former DR 1-102(A)(3), RPC 8.4(a)(3), and RPC 8.4(a)(4). [6] Before the trial panel, the Bar offered testimony from its investigators, wife, and attorneys Rudd (counsel for Chicago Title defendants), Nelson (counsel for wife), and Van Rysselberghe (counsel for Carroll), as well as expert testimony from attorney Hamlin. Hamlin's testimony focused on the legitimacy of the accused's legal positions, principally whether the confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement applied to the accused and whether former ORS 18.455 required the accused to disclose the terms of the settlement agreement. The accused and other members of his firm testified in his defense. Attorney Eggum testified as an expert on the legal positions that the accused had asserted in the underlying proceeding. The trial panel concluded as follows: The Accused violated DR 1-102(A)(3) and RPC 8.4(a)(3) in 2003 and again in December 2004, when the Accused misled the court and concealed the disclosure of the settlement terms to the nonsettling defendants. The Accused deliberately, for his own benefit, misstated the terms and origin of the confidentiality provision, particularly with respect to the lack of mutuality as to the restricted disclosure. The record evidence shows the Accused knowingly misled the court by stating that `neither side can divulge any information.' The Accused knew or should have known hat he was legally entitled to divulge the terms of the settlement. [7] Regarding RPC 8.4(a)(4), the panel found, To the extent that the Accused believed, in good faith, that he could rely upon narrow interpretations of ORS 18.455, the Accused nevertheless should have, but failed to, honestly disclose to the court the meaning of the confidentiality terms that the Accused insisted be included in the settlement agreement.    We find that the Bar met its burden of proving that the Accused abused the legal system by his misleading statements to the court. The panel found that the Bar had failed to prove its other allegations. It determined that the appropriate sanction was a three-month suspension.