SC Number:
CA Number:
Case Title:
In Re: Barnes H. Ellis
10:30 AM
Lewis and Clark College of Law
W. Michael Gillette and Nathan R. Christensen, on behalf of accuseds
Mary A. Cooper on behalf of Oregon State Bar
Statement of Issues:
In Re: Barnes H. Ellis (S061385)

The accuseds were accused of multiple instances of current- and former-client conflicts of interest (former DR 5-105(E) and (C)), and also misrepresentation by omission (former DR 1-102(A)(3)).

On review, the issues are:

(1) At the outset of an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) into a corporate client's accounting practices, in which the accused lawyers represented the company as well as various officers, managers, and employees, whether the accuseds were required to make certain disclosures to several of the clients about possible conflicts of interest arising from the joint representation;

(2) At the point in the SEC investigation when the company's interest arguably diverged with other clients' interests, whether the accuseds were required to make additional disclosures and obtain consent before continuing the multiple representations;

(3) During a subsequent criminal investigation, whether the accuseds were required to disclose particular information when they sought and obtained consent from former clients to continue the corporate representation in a limited fashion; if so, whether the failure to disclose amounted to an affirmative misrepresentation by omission;

(4) During accused Ellis's representation of one of the individual clients in a contemporaneous Bar proceeding, whether accused Ellis was required to make discloses about possible conflicts of interest and obtain consent from a different former individual client before continuing that representation; and

(5) Whether the trial panel erred in limiting an expert's testimony (on the accuseds' behalf) to abstract opinion, not including any opinion relating to the facts of the case.

The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating:
Rives Kistler
Merit Briefs

Last Revised: 02/19/2014