333 P.3d 994
Or.2014Background
- Bar charged Gatti with five causes arising from settlements brokered for Sprauer plaintiffs against the Archdiocese and State of Oregon.
- Trial panel found proven three causes and violations of RPC 1.4(b), RPC 1.7(a)(1), RPC 1.8(g), and RPC 8.4(a)(3); recommended six-month suspension.
- Court reviews de novo and holds proven RPC 1.4(b), RPC 1.7(a)(1), and RPC 1.8(g); RPC 8.4(a)(3) not proven.
- Sprauer plaintiffs consisted of 15 individuals, with a history of collective and individual settlement discussions tied to aggregate funding.
- JRA advised separate settlements but allowed aggregate or joint fund allocations; later facts showed the accused allocated funds non-contemporaneously.
- State settlement of $1.05 million was distributed, with New receiving $7,500 and N.K. excluded from distribution; accused signed N.K.’s name to a release without consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RPC 1.7(a)(1) current conflict of interest | Bar: surplus allocation created non-waivable conflict. | Gatti: advance proportional consent negates current conflict. | RPC 1.7(a)(1) violated |
| RPC 1.8(g) aggregate settlements | Bar: aggregate settlements require written informed consent for interdependent claims. | Gatti: no aggregate settlement under his construction; advance consent to proportional division possible. | RPC 1.8(g) violated |
| RPC 1.4(b) informed decision-making | Bar: clients lacked full information for decisions on allocation. | Gatti: informed consent existed to proceed; misstatements alleged only as to one figure. | RPC 1.4(b) violated (as to New) |
| RPC 8.4(a)(3) dishonesty/misrepresentation | Bar: misrepresentation in Archdiocese settlement disclosure and omissions. | Gatti: no proven false statements or material omissions meeting standard. | RPC 8.4(a)(3) not proven |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Renshaw, 353 Or 411 (2013) (de novo review standard for disciplinary decisions)
- In re Koch, 345 Or 444 (2008) (disciplinary review when trial panel lacks findings)
- In re Brandt/Griffin, 331 Or 113 (2000) (advisory opinions do not bar later charges)
- In re Ainsworth, 289 Or 479 (1980) (prior advice not a defense to charges)
- In re Eadie, 333 Or 42 (2001) (RPC 8.4(a)(3) dishonesty includes omissions)