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

Cite as In re Idiart, 19 DB Rptr 316 (2005)
prospective client was such that the prospective client could not exercise reasonable
judgment in employing a lawyer.
6.
Noah Cardamon (“Cardamon”), a 23-year-old Portland resident, was killed on
May 30, 2005, when he was hit by a car while riding his bicycle. Cardamon’s death
was reported in an online news article on Tuesday, May 31, 2005. The article quoted
Cardamon’s grandmother stating that the family “is reeling” from his death.
7.
On May 31, 2005, the employee read the online article reporting Cardamon’s
death. Upon reviewing the article, the employee determined that Cardamon was not
at fault in the accident and that the employee should therefore contact Cardamon’s
family on behalf of the Accused to solicit professional employment. That day, the
employee sent a form solicitation letter from the Accused to “the Family of Noah
Cardamon.”
8.
Cardamon’s father received the letter the next day, two days after Cardamon
was killed. At the time he was contacted on behalf of the Accused, Cardamon’s
father’s emotional state was such that he could not exercise reasonable judgment in
employing a lawyer to pursue a wrongful death claim arising from Cardamon’s fatal
accident.
9.
On the Accused’s behalf, the employee sent a written communication to
Cardamon’s family soliciting professional employment when the Accused knew or
reasonably should have known that the physical, emotional, or mental state of
Cardamon’s family was such that they could not exercise reasonable judgment in
employing a lawyer, in violation RPC 7.3(b)(1). The Accused violated RPC 7.3(b)(1)
through the acts of another, in violation of RPC 8.4(a)(1).
10.
By failing to instruct the employee of his ethical obligations relating to
communication with prospective clients to solicit professional employment, the
Accused failed to take reasonable efforts to ensure that his nonlawyer employee’s
conduct was compatible with his professional obligations, in violation of RPC 5.3(b).
318