In re Complaint as to the Conduct of Margaretta Eakin, 334 Or. 238

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed a lawyer disciplinary proceeding involving Margaretta Eakin's conduct in a contract dispute and a child-custody matter. On de novo review, the court found violations involving client trust-account funds, trust-account records, and return of client property, but rejected several alleged dishonesty, excessive-fee, and litigation-misconduct violations. The court imposed a 60-day suspension.

Holdings

1. The Bar failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Eakin violated DR 1-102(A)(3) by intentionally converting or dishonestly withdrawing the $850 from Schreiber's trust account.
2. Eakin violated DR 9-101(A), DR 9-101(C)(3), and DR 9-101(C)(4) by improperly removing client funds from the trust account, failing to maintain adequate trust-account records, and failing to return $850 to Schreiber when requested.
3. The Bar failed to prove that Eakin's litigation activities constituted dishonesty or churning under DR 1-102(A)(3), or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under DR 1-102(A)(4).
4. The Bar failed to prove that Eakin charged or collected a clearly excessive fee in violation of DR 2-106(A).
5. A 60-day suspension from the practice of law was appropriate because Eakin should have known that she was dealing improperly with client funds, had substantial experience, and caused injury or potential injury, notwithstanding mitigating factors.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Bar proved by clear and convincing evidence that Eakin intentionally converted or dishonestly misappropriated $850 from Schreiber's client trust account.
2. Whether Eakin violated the disciplinary rules requiring lawyers to maintain client funds in trust, maintain adequate client-property records, and promptly return client property.
3. Whether Eakin's litigation conduct in Schmidt's custody matter constituted dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, or churning.
4. Whether Eakin charged a clearly excessive fee in the Schmidt matter.
5. What sanction was appropriate for the proven trust-account violations.

Disposition

other