| Description: |
Leanne M. Bowker (WSBA No. 16737, admitted 1987), of Portland, Oregon, was suspended for 30 days, effective May 9, 2006, by order of the Washington State Supreme Court imposing reciprocal discipline based on an order of the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon following a stipulation. This discipline was based on her conduct in 2004 and 2005 involving conflicts of interest and disclosure of confidential information.
In 2004, Ms. Bowker was engaged to represent the lender in a loan transaction. The borrower in the transaction was Ms. Bowker’s former client in an estate-planning matter. The lender was the mother of the former client. Ms. Bowker believed that she was representing only the lender. However, based upon Ms. Bowker’s prior lawyer-client relationship with the borrower, meetings she had had with the borrower regarding the loan, and other circumstances, the borrower had a reasonable expectation that Ms. Bowker was representing the borrower in the matter. Ms. Bowker prepared a promissory note secured by a trust deed granting the lender an interest in the borrower’s home. The borrower subsequently executed a different promissory note prepared by another lawyer.
In July 2005, Ms. Bowker met with both the borrower and lender regarding problems that had arisen in connection with the loan. Ms. Bowker undertook to represent the lender in collecting the loaned funds from the borrower without obtaining the informed consent of the former client. In connection with her collection efforts, Ms. Bowker, at the lender’s instruction and despite objection by the borrower, sent the borrower’s brother a copy of the draft promissory note and trust deed she had prepared in 2004.
Ms. Bowker’s conduct violated Oregon DR 5-105(E), prohibiting a lawyer from representing multiple current clients in any matters when such representation would result in an actual or likely conflict; Oregon RPC 1.9(a), prohibiting a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter from thereafter representing another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing; and Oregon RPC 1.9(c)(2), prohibiting a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter from thereafter revealing information relating to the representation except as the Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.
Felice P. Congalton represented the Bar Association. Peter R. Jarvis represented Ms. Bowker. |