Per Curiam — By order dated October 18, 2021, the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon publicly reprimanded the respondent for his violation of rule 1.9(a) of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct (hereinafter RPC), which prohibits a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter from representing another person in a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client.
The Oregon Disciplinary Proceeding The respondent was admitted to the Oregon Bar on November 5, 1991, and maintains his law office and place of business in Oregon. On or about October 14, 2021, the respondent entered into a Stipulation for Discipline with the Oregon State Bar Disciplinary Counsel’s Office “freely, voluntarily, and with the opportunity to seek advice from counsel,” stating the following: In 2011 and 2012, the respondent represented Nels Johnson (hereinafter Nels) to obtain a modification of child support payable to his first wife, Julie Ann Johnson (hereinafter Julie). Nels disclosed financial information to the respondent that may not have been known to his then-wife, Ginette Johnson (hereinafter Ginette). In May 2019, Nels filed a pro se application for dissolution of his marriage to Ginette. The respondent undertook to represent Ginette in the dissolution matter, and did not obtain informed consent from Nels or Ginette for the representation. The court ultimately ordered the removal of the respondent from representing Ginette in the dissolution matter. The respondent stipulated that by representing Ginette in the dissolution matter, he violated Oregon RPC 1.9(a) and that public reprimand was appropriate based on the ABA Standards and Oregon case law. The respondent further stipulated that he violated his duty to his clients to avoid a conflict of interest and that he was negligent in failing to identify a substantial risk of using confidential information he obtained from a former client. Further, the respondent stipulated that he caused actual injury to his client because Ginette was required to retain new counsel in the dissolution matter when the court ordered the respondent’s removal. The respondent also caused injury to Nels, who experienced anxiety that his confidential information could be used against him in the dissolution matter and incurred additional legal fees to compel the respondent’s removal from representing Ginette. In aggravation, the respondent was reprimanded in 1996 for engaging in the unlawful practice of law, and in 2001, the respondent was suspended for a period of six months for engaging in criminal conduct that reflected adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice law. The parties stipulated that the prior discipline should not be given “substantial weight” given the remoteness in time and because the prior misconduct was not similar to the misconduct at issue here. In mitigation, there was an absence of dishonest or selfish motive by the respondent, and the respondent was cooperative during the Oregon disciplinary proceeding. The respondent further stipulated to attend a oneday course of study developed and offered by the Oregon Bar on the subjects of legal ethics, professional responsibility, and law office management. By order dated October 18, 2021, the Adjudicator of the Disciplinary Board approved the stipulation on behalf of the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, and publicly reprimanded the respondent.
