# In Re Schenck

> Oregon Supreme Court · September 9, 1994 · 320 Or. 94

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541156

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of RONALD D. SCHENCK, Accused
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 9, 1994
- **Citations:** 320 Or. 94; 879 P.2d 863; 1994 Ore. LEXIS 92
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Unis
- **Judges:** Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Fadeley, Unis, Richardson
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541156

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding there was no violation of DR 7-110(B), because the communication was not “on the merits”

## Opinion text

UNIS, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join in the court’s opinion in all respects, except the finding that the accused violated DR 7-104(A)(l). To find a violation of DR 7-104(A)(l), the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the accused (1) communicated or caused to communicate (2) with a person represented by counsel (3) whom the accused knows to be represented by counsel (4) on the subject of the representation or directly related subjects. In my view, the Bar has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the accused violated DR 7-104(A)(l).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9541156. Public record. Not legal advice.