[LCSD] Possible Ethics Violation?

It’s nice to be in one’s mid-20s. Lots of one’s friends are still in school learning interesting things. Look what a conversation I had led to me looking for and finding:

Rule 4.2 Communication with Person Represented by Counsel

In representing a client or the lawyer’s own interests, a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate on the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by a lawyer on that subject unless:

(a) the lawyer has the prior consent of a lawyer representing such other person;

(b) the lawyer is authorized by law or by court order to do so; or

(c) a written agreement requires a written notice or demand to be sent to such other person, in which case a copy of such notice or demand shall also be sent to such other person’s lawyer.

In other word, a lawyer cannot speak directly to someone who is represented by another lawyer unless one of the exceptions applies; instead, they must speak to the person’s lawyer.

That’s from the Oregon Code of Professional Conduct. You know, the one that applies to lawyers… like Jay Jackson.

If, as has been alleged, Jackson really sat down and wrote the amendments to the PIE contract with Josh Wineteer, then it sure looks like Jackson violated this part of the code in regards to Paul Dakopolos, the LCSD legal counsel, doesn’t it?

Heck, if that’s true, then think about all those contacts between Alexander or Wineteer – arguably clients of Paul Dakopolos – and Jackson that occurred without authorization, written permission, prior consent, or a court order.

I am not a lawyer. I don’t know that what Jackson did is a violation of anything other than plain ol’ ethics. I don’t know if this part of the Code applies to organizations like the LCSD or only individuals. But Jackson could be in a world of hurt on this one. In fact, I would not be surprised if the words ‘lost’ and ‘license’ were used in the same sentence here soon.

The Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct can also be found in PDF form here.

Explore posts in the same categories: ethics, LCSD, the law

One Comment on “[LCSD] Possible Ethics Violation?”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    I believe the amendment that Josh represented to the board for approval mirrors the proposal that Jackson presented to Paul Dakopolos prior to the May 5th meeting. Now Jackson can not say he did not have a hand in it if the two copies almost match word for word… The wheel keeps turning.

    Oh Mr. Jackson has ethic violations so what is another ethic violation to him matters?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: