Can an Oregon lawyer help a client buy back the client's own bad checks to reduce criminal exposure, if the steps are lawful?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2005. Ask about yours and see what the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer is asked to represent a client under investigation for negotiating bad checks. The client wants the lawyer to use the client's money to buy up as many of the client's bad checks as possible to limit exposure in the criminal proceedings. The opinion assumes for its analysis that the lawyer's actions will be lawful, and asks whether the lawyer may do so. The conclusion is yes, qualified.
The opinion applies Oregon RPC 1.2: a lawyer must abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation, may take impliedly authorized action to carry out the representation, may limit the scope of representation with informed consent, but may not counsel or assist a client in conduct the lawyer knows is illegal or fraudulent (though the lawyer may discuss legal consequences and help a client make a good-faith effort to determine the law's application). It also sets out the misconduct standards of RPC 8.4(a).
Because the actions the client asks the lawyer to perform are assumed lawful, the opinion concludes the lawyer has a duty to act in accordance with the client's directions. The opinion's qualification is the lawfulness assumption itself: it contrasts the result with cases disciplining lawyers who advised or assisted clients in defrauding creditors.
In practice
The opinion holds that the permissibility of helping a client buy back the client's own bad checks turns on whether the conduct is lawful. The opinion treats lawful, client-directed steps as something the lawyer must carry out under RPC 1.2(a), while RPC 1.2(c) and 8.4 would bar the lawyer from assisting conduct the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent.
Common questions
Q: Can a lawyer help a client repurchase the client's own bad checks?
A: Yes, if lawful. The opinion concludes that because the assumed-lawful actions are the client's decision, the lawyer has a duty under RPC 1.2(a) to act on the client's directions.
Q: What would make this impermissible?
A: Illegality or fraud. The opinion concludes RPC 1.2(c) bars a lawyer from counseling or assisting conduct the lawyer knows is illegal or fraudulent, and RPC 8.4 makes such assistance misconduct.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 1.2 (scope of representation and allocation of authority), including the duty to abide by client decisions in 1.2(a) and the bar on assisting illegal or fraudulent conduct in 1.2(c), with the misconduct standards of RPC 8.4(a). These track Model Rules 1.2 and 8.4.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Oregon RPC 1.2 / Model Rule 1.2 (scope of representation; client decisions)
- Oregon RPC 8.4(a) / Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct)
Cases:
- In re Hockett, 303 Or 150, 734 P2d 877 (1987)
- In re Claussen, 331 Or 252, 14 P3d 586 (2000)
See also
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-7: Lawyer-Legislator Lobbying for a Client Fee
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-1: Withdrawal From Litigation for Unpaid Fees
Source
- Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
- Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-18.pdf
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2005. Ezel checks the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace