In re Complaint as to the Conduct of Derek J. Ashton

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed a lawyer disciplinary proceeding involving Derek J. Ashton and settlement agreements that restricted a witness’s ability to testify in a criminal case. The court rejected the alleged violations of RPC 3.4(b), upheld one violation of RPC 3.4(c) and two violations of RPC 8.4(a)(4), and imposed a 30-day suspension from the practice of law.

Holdings

1. The Bar failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Ashton violated RPC 3.4(b) as charged because the settlement agreements did not condition payment on G's testifying or testifying in a particular manner.
2. Ashton violated RPC 3.4(c) by knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal when he drafted and executed the September settlement agreement after the trial court rejected the proposed civil compromise.
3. Ashton violated RPC 8.4(a)(4) by drafting and offering settlement agreements that conditioned payment on G's agreement not to testify in future legal proceedings without an exception for testimony compelled by a court or quasi-judicial authority. His RPC 3.4(c) violation also constituted a separate violation of RPC 8.4(a)(4), resulting in two violations of that rule.
4. A 30-day suspension from the practice of law, commencing 60 days after the decision, is the appropriate sanction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the settlement agreements made payment to G contingent upon the content of his testimony within the meaning of RPC 3.4(b).
2. Whether Ashton's contempt judgment established that he knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal in violation of RPC 3.4(c).
3. Whether drafting and offering settlement agreements that purported to prevent G from testifying without an exception for lawful compulsion constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice under RPC 8.4(a)(4).
4. Whether the appropriate sanction was a 30-day suspension, a 60-day suspension, or a longer suspension.

Disposition

other