In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Bishop
Oregon Supreme Court
1Per curiam
This disciplinary proceeding concerns various aspects of the Disciplinary Rules contained in the Code of Professional Responsibility for effecting the admonition of Canon 5: “A Lawyer Should Exercise Independent Professional Judgment on Behalf of a Client.” The complaint of the Oregon State Bar is in three causes. All causes arise out of the accused’s dealings with Mrs. Hartmann. The specific charges of unethical conduct are more easily understood against the background of what actually occurred; therefore, we shall set forth our basic findings of historical fact based upon admissions in the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Cook v. MichaelOregon Supreme Court · 1958
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of BoivinOregon Supreme Court · 1975
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of BartlettOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of DrakeOregon Supreme Court · 1982
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of BoyerOregon Supreme Court · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- ATTORNEY GRIEV. COMM'N OF MARYLAND v. SliffmanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of LuebkeOregon Supreme Court · 1986
- In re Panel's Affirmance of Director of Professional Responsibility's Admonition in Panel Matter No. 87-22Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- In re DayOregon Supreme Court · 2018
- Brooks v. ZebreWyoming Supreme Court · 1990
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.