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

Cite as In re Peterson, 19 DB Rptr 368 (2005)
STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE
Todd A. Peterson, attorney at law (hereinafter “the Accused”), and the Oregon
State Bar (hereinafter “the Bar”) hereby stipulate to the following matters pursuant
to Oregon State Bar Rule of Procedure 3.6(c).
1.
The Bar was created and exists by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon
and is, and at all times mentioned herein was, authorized to carry out the provisions
of ORS Chapter 9, relating to the discipline of lawyers.
2.
The Accused was admitted by the Oregon Supreme Court to the practice of
law in Oregon on September 27, 1991, and has been a member of the Oregon State
Bar continuously since that time, having his office and place of business in
Multnomah County, Oregon.
3.
The Accused enters into this Stipulation for Discipline freely and voluntarily.
This Stipulation for Discipline is made under the restrictions of Bar Rule of
Procedure 3.6(h).
4.
On July 28, 2005, an Amended Formal Complaint was filed against the
Accused pursuant to the authorization of the State Professional Responsibility Board
(hereinafter “SPRB”), alleging violation of DR 1-103(C), DR 6-101(A), and ORPC
4.2. The parties intend that this Stipulation for Discipline set forth all relevant facts,
violations, and the agreed-upon sanction as a final disposition of the proceeding.
Facts
5.
On or about March 26, 2003, the Accused undertook to represent Bradley
Nikko (hereinafter “Nikko”) in a personal injury matter. On or about August 30,
2004, Nikko terminated the Accused’s employment and retained new counsel to
represent him in the personal injury matter. At all relevant times herein, the Accused
knew Nikko was represented by other counsel in the personal injury matter.
6.
Beginning in about September 2004, a dispute arose between the Accused and
Nikko about the amount of the Accused’s fee and his entitlement to a lien against
any proceeds from the settlement of the personal injury matter to secure the fee.
Nikko’s new counsel undertook to represent Nikko in this dispute. At all relevant
times herein, the Accused knew Nikko was represented by other counsel in the
369