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

Cite as In re Kahn, 19 DB Rptr 351 (2005)
violated; (2) the lawyer’s mental state; (3) the actual or potential injury; and (4) the
existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
A. Duty Violated. The Accused violated his duty to his clients to avoid a
conflict of interest. Standards, § 4.3.
B. Mental State. The Accused acted negligently. The Accused viewed
Gibson as his only client without appreciating that his firm’s separate lawyer-client
relationship with Blue Water, Barnes, and Cascade Structural gave rise to conflicts
of interest. The failure to recognize a substantial risk that such conflicts of interest
existed was a deviation from the Standards, of care a reasonable lawyer would
exercise in the situation.
C. Injury. There was potential injury to Barnes, Cascade Structural, Blue
Water, and Gibson as a result of the divided loyalties of the Accused.
D. Aggravating Factors. Aggravating factors include:
1. The Accused committed multiple offenses of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Standards, § 9.22(d).
2. The Accused has substantial experience in the practice of law.
Standards, § 9.22(i).
E. Mitigating Factors. Mitigating factors include:
1. The Accused has no prior disciplinary history. Standards, § 9.32(a).
2. The Accused showed a cooperative attitude toward disciplinary
proceedings. Standards, § 9.32(e).
14.
The Standards provide that reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer
is negligent in determining whether the representation of a client will adversely affect
another client and causes injury or potential injury to a client. Standards, § 4.33.
15.
Oregon case law is in accord. In re Brownstein, 288 Or 83, 87, 602 P2d 655
(1979) (public reprimand when lawyer represented a small closely held corporation
and a third party who became a shareholder loaning money to the corporation); In re
Banks, 283 Or 459, 584 P2d 284 (1978) (public reprimand issued to lawyer who
represented formerly closely held corporation against its former principal); In re
Drake, 18 DB Rptr 225 (2004) (public reprimand when lawyer engaged in multiple
offenses when she mistakenly represented corporation against employee who was a
firm client in other matters related to the corporation).
355