| Description: |
George Wittemyer (WSBA No. 4498, admitted 1967), of Portland, has been ordered suspended for four months, by order of the Supreme Court of Washington, dated December 6, 1999. The Supreme Court’s order of reciprocal discipline, pursuant to Rule for Lawyer Discipline (RLD) 12.6, is based on the Oregon Supreme Court’s April 29, 1999 order approving a stipulation to discipline. The Court ordered the Washington suspension to run concurrently with the Oregon suspension, beginning on June 28, 1999.
From August 1989 through July 1991, Mr. Wittemyer represented Pacific Chips, a timber corporation. During this time, he served as legal counsel, secretary and registered agent. He also owned stock in Pacific Chips.
Also in 1989, Mr. Wittemyer began representing a client, Ms. X. From mid-1989 through mid-1990, he was involved in a romantic relationship with Ms. X. Pacific Chips asked Ms. X for a $300,000 business loan. Ms. X agreed to loan Pacific Chips $150,000 if Mr. Wittemyer would do the same. He agreed, but did not reduce the agreement to writing or inform Pacific Chips of his participation. Mr. Wittemyer did not advise Ms. X of the potential conflicts of interest, even though another attorney suggested this. The loan closed in December 1989. Mr. Wittemyer drafted the promissory note, UCC financing statement and security agreement, all indicating the whole $300,000 was owed to Ms. X. He told Ms. X it would look better if his interest was not disclosed. After a few interest-only payments on the loan, Pacific Chips defaulted. Mr. Wittemyer took several actions to collect the loan, including retaining a lawyer. He instructed the lawyer to bill Ms. X, but to send the bills to his office. Mr. Wittemyer drafted a lawsuit against Pacific Chips, which the lawyer filed. The lawsuit named only Ms. X. Mr. Wittemyer accepted service of the lawsuit on behalf of Pacific Chips. In July 1991, the court entered a default judgment against Pacific Chips for $300,000, plus $50,000 in punitive damages and costs and attorney’s fees. Ms. X recovered her initial investment, but not her attorney’s fees or interest on the loan. Mr. Wittemyer recovered approximately $25,000 of the amount he loaned Pacific Chips.
Mr. Wittemyer’s actions violated Oregon DR 5-101(A), prohibiting accepting or continuing employment when the exercise of judgment on behalf of the client is or may be affected by business, property or personal interests; DR 4-104(A), prohibiting entering a business transaction with a client in which the lawyer and the client have differing interests; and DR 105(E), prohibiting representing multiple clients with conflicting interests.
Joanne Abelson represented the Bar Association. Mr. Wittemyer represented himself.
|