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

Cite as In re Hendrick, 19 DB Rptr 170 (2005)
further factual inquiry, the parties agree that the alleged violations of DR 1-102(A)(3)
and DR 1-103(C) should be and, upon the approval of this stipulation, are dismissed.
Fidelity Matter
(Case No. 03-128)
20.
Fidelity Northwest, Inc. and a related predecessor company, Fidelity Financial
Services Corporation, dba Fidelity Mortgage Services (hereinafter “Fidelity”), was a
licensed mortgage broker. Fidelity used primarily private investor money to fund
loans. Russell Voeller (hereinafter “Voeller”) was an owner and president of Fidelity.
21.
In and between 1993 and 1998, the Accused provided legal advice to and
performed legal services for Fidelity and Voeller. In and between 1993 and 1998,
Fidelity proposed to private investors that they fund loans to the Accused and other
persons. In and between 1993 and 1998, private investors, including clients of the
Accused, provided funds to Fidelity for loans to the Accused. In and between 1993
and 1998, the Accused from time to time provided legal advice and performed legal
services for some of the private investors who provided funds to Fidelity for loans
to the Accused, but not concerning the specific loan transactions between the
Accused and the investors.
22.
The Accused accepted and continued employment as Fidelity’s, Voeller’s, and
some of the private investors’ lawyer when the exercise of his professional judgment
on behalf of Fidelity, Voeller, and the private investors was likely to be or may
reasonably have been affected by his own financial, business, property or personal
interests. The Accused failed to provide the private investors, Fidelity and Voeller,
orally or in writing, with an explanation sufficient to apprise them of the potential
adverse impact of his continued representation; failed to recommend that they seek
independent legal advice whether to consent to the representation; and failed to
obtain Fidelity’s, Voeller’s, and the private investors’ consent to his representation.
23.
The Accused admits that his conduct constituted a lawyer self-interest conflict
and that he violated DR 5-101(A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Sanction
24.
The Accused and the Bar agree that in fashioning an appropriate sanction, the
Disciplinary Board should consider the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer
Sanctions (hereinafter “Standards”). The Standards require that the Accused’s
175