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

Cite as In re Eichelberger, 19 DB Rptr 329 (2005)
Fletchers. In November 2003, the Fletchers filed an answer, asserted counterclaims,
and joined Harris and ECH as third-party defendants.
10.
In January 2004, Freedom settled its litigation against the Fletchers for a small
percentage of the claim, in exchange for the Fletchers’ cooperation and assignment
of their third-party claims against Harris and ECH to Freedom and the Accused. The
Accused thereafter pursued the third-party claims against Harris and ECH—by then
his former clients. The Accused did not make any disclosures to Harris or obtain
Harris’s or ECH’s consent to this adverse representation.
Violations
11.
The Accused admits that, by contracting with Harris while continuing to
represent Harris in various litigation and other matters related to Harris’s construction
companies, without providing him with adequate written disclosures or obtaining
Harris’s informed consent, the Accused engaged in a personal interest conflict in
violation of DR 5-101(A). The Accused further acknowledges that by undertaking
representation of Freedom in litigation adverse to the interests of Harris, the Accused
violated DR 5-105(C). Upon further factual inquiry, the parties agree that the charge
of alleged violation of DR 5-104(A) related to the Freedom Matter should be and,
upon the approval of this stipulation, is dismissed.
Wendt Matter
Facts
12.
In December 2002, ECH entered into an agreement (hereinafter “construction
contract”) with Chris Wendt (hereinafter “Wendt”) and another investor to build a
custom home on a lot in Glen Eden IV that Wendt and the other investor had
purchased from CDC. Harris did not complete construction of the house by the time
agreed in the construction contract, and Wendt became concerned about the liens that
were accumulating against his title.
13.
In January 2004, the Accused undertook to represent Wendt, and on behalf of
Wendt, terminated the construction contract in Glen Eden IV and ordered Harris and
ECH to do nothing further on the project. Wendt’s interests were in actual conflict
with those of Harris. The Accused did not provide full disclosure to Harris or obtain
Harris’s informed consent to represent Wendt.
332