P:\CLEPUB\Books\Disciplinary Board Reporter ... - Oregon State Bar

Cite as In re Hendrick, 19 DB Rptr 170 (2005)
Thereafter, VanCleve failed to respond to Sunset Village’s inquiries regarding a
storage agreement and payment of storage fees for the mobile home that VanCleve
had left behind.
6.
In or about January 2002, Sunset Village initiated a nonjudicial foreclosure
proceeding against VanCleve’s abandoned mobile home for nonpayment of storage
fees. In or about January 2002, Michael Morris (hereinafter “Morris”) retained the
Accused to represent VanCleve concerning the dispute with Sunset Village. The
Accused represented VanCleve concerning the dispute.
7.
In or about February 2002, the Accused advanced financial assistance to
VanCleve in connection with her dispute with Sunset Village by agreeing to loan and
loaning $2,456 for the benefit of VanCleve. In or about February 2002, the Accused
delivered his check for $2,456 to Sunset Village’s lawyer to resolve the dispute and
to satisfy some of VanCleve’s obligations to Sunset Village. Subsequently, the
Accused stopped payment on the check before the check was paid by his bank.
8.
The Accused admits that the aforesaid conduct constituted advancing financial
assistance for the benefit of his client in violation of DR 5-103(B) of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Upon further factual inquiry, the parties agree that the
alleged violation of DR 5-108(B) should be and, upon the approval of this
stipulation, is dismissed.
Koppenstein Matter
(Case No. 03-127)
9.
Chris and Carol Koppenstein (hereinafter “the Koppensteins”) retained the
Accused to pursue civil claims against the Appraisers Certification and Licensure
Board and Linda Riddell (hereinafter collectively “Board”). On or about April 29,
1999, the Accused, together with co-counsel, filed a civil complaint for the
Koppensteins, Carol Koppenstein and Chris Koppenstein v. Appraisers Certification
and Licensure Board and Linda Riddell, Polk County Circuit Court Case No.
99P1214 (hereinafter “State Court Action”). In or about August 1999, the Accused
caused the summons and complaint concerning the State Court Action to be served
on the Board.
10.
The Board was represented by counsel in the State Court Action. On or about
September 17, 1999, the Board’s lawyers filed a motion to make more definite and
172