Legal Opinion
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Gillis
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided July 31, 1984No. 82-81, SC S30292PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Per curiam
In this case two attorneys are charged with violating DR 7-110(B) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which, in pertinent part, provides:
“In an adversary proceeding, a lawyer shall not communicate, or cause another to communicate, as to the merits of the cause with a judge or an official before whom the proceeding is pending, except:
“(1) In the course of official proceedings in the cause.
<<* * * * *
“(4) As otherwise authorized by law or by Section A(4) under Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.”
In substance, attorney Carstens is charged with having caused his partner Gillis to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Anderson v. RobinsonOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Grayson v. GraysonOregon Supreme Court · 1960
- WM. H. Taylor Finance Corp. v. Oregon Logging & Timber Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1925
- Muellhaupt v. Joseph A. Strowbridge Estate Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1931
- In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of SmithOregon Supreme Court · 1983
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Clausen v. CarstensCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986