Reporter - Oregon State Bar

80 In re Dauahters
11.
On June 23, 1989, the Accused wrote client Price and informed him that
he would not proceed with the litigation unless the parties reached an agreement
as to both past and future fees and costs.
12.
On October 17, 1989, the Accused wrote both clients Ramus and Price
proposing a fee agreement and notifying them that if they did not accept the
terms of the fee agreement by November 1, 1989, he would move to withdraw
as attorney for the non-agreeing client.
13.
As of November 1, 1989, no agreement had been reached between client
Price and the Accused, nor had the Accused moved to withdraw as attorney of
record for client Price.
14.
Thereafter, depositions of clients Ramus and Price were scheduled between
the Accused and opposing counsel for November 29, 1989. The Accused did not
consult with client Price as to his availability on that date. On November 24,
1989, opposing counsel noticed client Price to a deposition on November 29,
1989. A copy of that notice was not forwarded to client Price by the Accused.
15.
At no time did the Accused formally notice or prepare client Price for his
deposition. Client Price learned of his scheduled deposition on November 27,
1989 when the Accused contacted Price's wife to notify Price of the deposition.
At that time, client Price was out of town. Upon learning that his deposition was
scheduled for November 29, 1989, client Price phoned the Accused, leaving a
message indicating that he would be unable to attend.