In Re Conduct of Tichenor
Oregon Supreme Court
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
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of EadieOregon Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. DorisOregon Supreme Court · 1908
- State v. BatehamOregon Supreme Court · 1919
- State v. MarshallOregon Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. ShullOregon Supreme Court · 1929
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Holbrook v. AmsberryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
- Holbrook v. BlacketterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
- State v. Formby-CarterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020