In re Complaint as to the Conduct of WHEELOCK

On January 23, 1968, we ordered C. E. Wheelock to show cause why his license to practice law in this *573state should not be suspended for misconduct. .The misconduct did not cause loss to a client, nor was there evidence of serious moral fault. But it was a second offense, and amounted to deception wholly inconsistent Avith a lawyer’s obligation of fidelity to his client. We Avill not describe the unhappy affair, in detail, as the conduct complained of Avas substantially of the same character.as the first offense. See In re C. E. Wheelock, 233 Or 236, 377 P2d 858 (1963).

We are now satisfied that…