Legal Opinion

In Re Conduct of Tichenor

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 16, 2006No. OSB 03-33; SC S52239PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

In this lawyer disciplinary proceeding, the Oregon State Bar alleged that the accused violated Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule (DR) 7-106(C)(1) (prohibiting lawyers from referring to matters that will not be supported by admissible evidence). A trial panel of the Disciplinary Board determined that the accused had violated that rule and reprimanded him. Because we find that the accused’s conduct did not violate DR 7-106(C)(l), we dismiss the Bar’s complaint.

The events that gave rise to this disciplinary proceeding are not disputed. The state charged Holbrook with sexually…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of EadieOregon Supreme Court · 2001
  2. State v. DorisOregon Supreme Court · 1908
  3. State v. BatehamOregon Supreme Court · 1919
  4. State v. MarshallOregon Supreme Court · 1991
  5. State v. ShullOregon Supreme Court · 1929

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Holbrook v. AmsberryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  2. Holbrook v. BlacketterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  3. State v. Formby-CarterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API