Conflict Of Interest Clarification

Summary

Oregon RPC 1.7 addresses conflicts of interest in legal representation. If an attorney represents conflicting interests, informed consent from all parties is required. Domestic partnerships in Oregon, under ORS 106.340(1), grant similar rights to marriage. Party 3, as guardian, needs court approval to alter such agreements. Status-based agreements like marriages or DPAs confer additional rights beyond contract terms. Legal advice is recommended for navigating these issues.

Full Conversation

So is DR *-* obsolete?
Yes, DR *-* is considered obsolete as it was replaced by the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), specifically Rule *.*, which deals with conflicts of interest. Do you need help with a specific conflict of interest issue?
In the current PRC dated January *, *, the text of RPC *.* states "The current conflicts of interest prohibited in paragraph (a) are the self-interest conflicts currently prohibited by DR *-*(A) and current client conflicts prohibited by DR *-*(E)" -- indicating DR *-* is current.
It looks like there might be some confusion due to the reference. In the context of the current RPC (Rules of Professional Conduct), DR *-* is referenced to clarify the origin of certain prohibitions. However, DR *-* itself is no longer in effect as a stand-alone rule; its principles have been incorporated into the current RPC.
Do you have a specific conflict of interest situation that you need assistance with?
Suppose Party * & Party * are adults in a longstanding Domestic Partnership Agreement (DPA) mutually designating them as "beneficiaries & personal representative in all matters". When Party * becomes incapacitated with a TBI Party * retains Attorney * to petition Oregon probate court for guardianship/conservatorship (G&C) by obfuscating the existence of Party * & the DPA. Attorneys * & * negotiate a proposed settlement between Parties * & * which the probate court approves. Then upon new information, & because it violates terms of the existing DPA contract, Party * withdraws informed consent & declines to sign. Attorney * seeks to enforce the proposed settlement via a civil claim with Party * & Party * as co-claimants. Party * is a protected person with memory & cognitive impairments who has not been afforded independent counsel.
Case Rating: *
This situation involves complex legal issues, including potential conflicts of interest, guardianship, and the enforcement of settlements. Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case? By submitting this request, I authorize you to forward my information to multiple potential lawyers and I agree to your Terms of Use and Privacy Policy including the Consent to Receive Automated Phone Calls, Emails and Texts. Information you provide is not privileged or confidential.
Can you give me a bit more information about the issue?
No thank you, I do not consent to connecting/forwarding. Does RPC *.* prevent Attorney * from representing Party * and Party *?
Case Rating: *
Oregon RPC *.* addresses conflicts of interest with current clients. If Attorney *'s representation of Party * and Party * creates a significant risk that the representation of one client will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, then Attorney * may be prevented from representing both parties without appropriate waivers. It would be wise to consult an attorney to evaluate the specific details of your situation.
The proposed settlement Party * seeks to enforce is unsigned by Party * and breaches Party * obligations under the DPA. The DPA was in effect at the time of Party * incapacitation and can only be terminated in writing. Can Party * pursue breaching or terminating the DPA as G&C? As a protected person with a TBI and without independent representation, can Party * give informed consent to terminating the DPA, to a probate settlement, or to a civil action to enforce an unsigned agreement?
Case Rating: *
This situation involves complex legal issues related to guardianship, incapacitation, and conflicts of interest. Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case? By submitting this request, I authorize you to forward my information to multiple potential lawyers and I agree to your Terms of Use and Privacy Policy including the Consent to Receive Automated Phone Calls, Emails, and Texts. Information you provide is not privileged or confidential.
Can you give me a bit more information about the issue?
No thank you, I do not consent to connecting/forwarding. What additional information do you require?
Case Rating: *
Given the complexity of your situation involving guardianship, incapacitation, and conflicts of interest, it might be highly valuable to consult with a lawyer.
To answer your specific questions:
- Party * may attempt to pursue breaching or terminating the DPA as G&C, but this is subject to legal scrutiny.
- Party *, being incapacitated and without independent representation, might not have the capacity to give informed consent to terminate the DPA, settle the probate matter, or participate in a civil action to enforce an unsigned agreement.
Would you like to provide more details or ask another specific question about your situation?
Elaborate on "Party * may attempt to pursue breaching or terminating the DPA as G&C, but this is subject to legal scrutiny."
Case Rating: *
Sure, let me elaborate:
- Legal Scrutiny: Any attempt by Party * (as guardian/conservator) to breach or terminate the DPA must be reviewed by the court to ensure it aligns with the best interests of Party *, considering their incapacitation.
- DPA Terms: The DPA's specific terms and conditions will be evaluated to determine if termination is permissible.
- Court Approval: The court will assess if Party *'s actions are legally justified and in Party *’s best interests, especially without Party *’s informed consent.
Would you like to ask more specific questions about this situation?
Is there legal precedent in Oregon for Party * to terminate the DPA Party * is a party to? Without any clear or present danger to Party * or Party *, what would legally justify such action?
Case Rating: *
While I can't provide specific legal precedent without more detailed research, here are some general points:
- The court assesses the best interests of Party *, considering their incapacitation.
- Terms of the DPA will be scrutinized.
- Justifications could include financial management or care needs, even without clear or present danger.
Would you like to ask more specific questions about your situation?
To rephrase, it sounds like without *) specific qualifying grounds and *) prior court approval Party * is not permitted to terminate or breach the DPA, correct?
Case Rating: *
Yes, you are correct. Without specific qualifying grounds and prior court approval, Party * is not permitted to terminate or breach the DPA. Both legal justification and court oversight are required in such matters.
Do you have any more specific questions or need further clarification on this topic?
Does your response make a distinction between Domestic Partnership and marriage?
Case Rating: *
Yes, there is a distinction between domestic partnerships and marriage in Oregon:
- Domestic Partnership: Recognized for same-sex couples, providing similar rights and responsibilities as marriage.
- Marriage: Legally recognized union between two individuals, regardless of gender, with comprehensive rights and responsibilities.
Would you like more information about the legal differences between the two?
House Bill *, passed during Oregon's * legislative session, removes restrictions on the sex of partners, effective */*/*.
Case Rating: *
House Bill * indeed affects the recognition of partnerships, allowing for domestic partnerships without restrictions on the sex of partners.
Would you like to ask anything specific about how this new law might impact your situation?
Party * and Party * are opposite sex. The DPA meets all criteria of ORS *.* to *.*, and is unregistered as it pre-dates HB2032. However, Oregon courts have upheld the validity of Domestic Partnerships since the 1970s, citing "intent" as the key factor in binding contracts. Also, ORS *.* (*) states "Two individuals wishing to become partners in a domestic partnership *may* complete and file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the county clerk" emphasis added to "may". The statute wording holds that registration (ie: unavailable to opposite sex prior to */*/*) is optional.
Case Rating: *
This situation involves complex legal issues concerning guardianship, domestic partnership, and potential conflicts of interest. Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case? By submitting this request, I authorize you to forward my information to multiple potential lawyers, and I agree to your Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, including the Consent to Receive Automated Phone Calls, Emails, and Texts. Information you provide is not privileged or confidential.
Can you give me a bit more information about the issue?
Disregard the guardianship matter. Address the DPA rights re: ORS *.* (*) states "Any privilege, immunity, right or benefit granted by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because the individual is or was married, or because the individual is or was an in-law in a specified way to another individual, is granted on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, to an individual because the individual is or was in a domestic partnership or because the individual is or was, based on a domestic partnership, related in a specified way to another individual."
Case Rating: *
Under ORS *.*(*), individuals in a domestic partnership in Oregon are entitled to the same privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits as those granted to married individuals. This means:
- Any legal benefit or protection available to married couples also applies to domestic partners.
- This equivalence extends to statutory, administrative, and common law rights.
Is there a specific right or benefit you are concerned about in relation to this statute?
Yes, the right of Party * as G&C to terminate or breach a contract establishing Parties * & * as having "any privilege, immunity, right or benefit granted by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because the individual is or was married". Additionally, the application of RPC *.* on Attorney * representing Party * claiming to represent Party * in this context.
Case Rating: *
Here are some insights:
- ORS *.*(*): Confirms that domestic partners have equivalent rights to married individuals. Party * would need court approval to terminate or breach the DPA based on these rights.
- RPC *.*: Attorney * may face a conflict of interest representing both Party * and Party * if their interests conflict.
Would you like to clarify anything further about the rights under the DPA or the potential conflict of interest with Attorney *?
Yes, address the latter. RPC *.* per (b)(*) prohibits representation that obligates the lawyer to contend for something on behalf of one client that the lawyer has a duty to oppose on behalf of another client unless per *.*(b)(*) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. An attorney for Party * has an obligation to oppose actions causing Party * to breach a contractual agreement that Party * is a party to.
Case Rating: *
Oregon RPC *.*(b)(*) prohibits an attorney from representing conflicting interests unless both parties give informed consent in writing.
- Conflict of Interest: Attorney * must avoid representing Party * in actions that oppose Party *’s interests without informed consent.
- Duty to Oppose: An attorney for Party * must oppose actions causing breaches of Party *’s contractual obligations.
Do you have any specific questions regarding this conflict of interest?
Is there a word the law gives to the kind of agreements such as marriages or DPAs or similar that create additional rights and protections beyond the terms of the contract?
Case Rating: *
The agreements you're referring to, such as marriages or Domestic Partnership Agreements (DPAs), are often known as "status-based agreements" or "status relationships." These create additional rights and protections beyond the explicit terms of the contract due to the legal status conferred by the relationship.
Is there something specific you would like to know about these agreements?