Wade Bettis Publicly Reprimanded for RPC 1.7(a) Violation

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON In re: the Conduct of ) ) WADE P. BETTIS, Bar No. 720255 ) Case No. 23-174 ) Respondent. )

Counsel for the Bar: Eric J. Collins Counsel for the Respondent: Amber Bevacqua-Lynott Disciplinary Board: None Disposition: Violation of RPC 1.7(a). Stipulation for Discipline. Public reprimand. Effective Date of Order: June 17, 2025 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE This matter having been heard upon the Stipulation for Discipline entered into by Wade

1. Bettis (Respondent) and the Oregon State Bar, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation between the parties is approved and Respondent is publicly reprimanded for violation of RPC 1.7(a). DATED this 17th day of June 2025. /s/ Mark A. Turner Mark A. Turner Adjudicator, Disciplinary Board STIPULATION FOR DISCIPLINE Wade P. Bettis, attorney at law (Respondent), and the Oregon State Bar (Bar) hereby stipulate to the following matters pursuant to Bar Rule of Procedure 3.6(3).

The Bar was created and exists by virtue of the laws of the State of Oregon and is, and at all times mentioned herein was, authorized to carry out the provisions of ORS Chapter 9, relating to the discipline of attorneys.

Respondent was admitted by the Oregon Supreme Court to the practice of law in Oregon on September 22, 1972, and has been a member of the Bar continuously since that time, having his office and place of business in Union County, Oregon.

Respondent enters into this Stipulation for Discipline freely, voluntarily, and with the advice of counsel. This Stipulation for Discipline is made under the restrictions of Bar Rule of Procedure 3.6(8).

On November 14, 2024, a formal complaint was filed against Respondent pursuant to the authorization of the State Professional Responsibility Board (SPRB), alleging violation of RPC 1.7(a) of the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. The parties intend that this Stipulation for Discipline set forth all relevant facts, violations and the agreed-upon sanction as a final disposition of the proceeding. Facts

In November 2020, an elderly man retained Respondent regarding alleged elder abuse by his daughter. The client had concern about undergoing the stress of litigation and requested that one of his sons be appointed as his agent to act on his behalf in any lawsuit. To accomplish this, Respondent recommended that they seek the son’s court appointment as conservator for the client, and the client agreed to that course of action.

On January 5, 2021, Respondent filed a petition he drafted that identified the son as the petitioner and that nominated the son as conservator for Respondent’s client. The petition mistakenly listed Respondent as attorney for the petitioner rather than for the protected party — who was actually his client, and the son signed the petition. Respondent did not recognize or appreciate that it appeared he was representing the son in the protective proceeding. Subsequently, Respondent filed the Notice of Petition to Appoint Conservator, which Respondent

signed as “Attorney for the conservator.” The notice listed the son as the petitioner and identified Respondent as attorney for the petitioner.

On January 19, 2021, the client’s daughter filed an objection to the appointment of a conservator in general as well as to the appointment of her brother as conservator specifically. On February 26, 2021, before the court set a hearing on the objection and before any action was taken that may have required Respondent to respond on behalf of his client or his client’s son, Respondent’s client died.

Respondent now recognizes that when he filed the January 5, 2021, petition and subsequent notice, he became attorney of record for the proposed conservator (son) when he was already representing the protected person (client). This concurrent representation amounted to a current-client conflict of interest, in that his client’s legal interest in preserving autonomy was objectively adverse to the son’s legal interest (as the proposed conservator) in obtaining control over those affairs. This conflict of interest lasted until the client’s death the following month. Although both the client and his son were aware (and in agreement) that Respondent only intended to represent the protected person, this was not a conflict capable of being waived or consented to under the circumstances. Violations

Respondent admits that by becoming attorney of record for the proposed conservator (the son) while simultaneously representing the protected party (his client) in that proceeding, he had a current-client conflict of interest in violation of RPC 1.7(a). Sanction

Respondent and the Bar agree that in fashioning an appropriate sanction in this case, the Disciplinary Board should consider the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (ABA Standards). The ABA Standards require that Respondent’s conduct be analyzed by considering the following factors: (1) the ethical duty violated; (2) the attorney’s mental state; (3) the actual or potential injury; and (4) the existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

1. Duty Violated. Respondent violated his duty to his client to avoid conflicts of
   interest. ABA Standard 4.3.

2. Mental State. “Intent” is the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a
   particular result. ABA Standards at 9. “Knowledge” is the conscious awareness of the nature or attendant circumstances of the conduct but without the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result. ABA Standards at 9. “Negligence” is the failure to be aware of a substantial risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow and which deviates from the standard of care that a reasonable lawyer would exercise in the situation. Id. Here, Respondent was negligent in identifying himself in court filings and notices as the attorney for the party seeking court-appointment as conservator for the protected party while simultaneously representing the protected party.

3. Injury. Injury can be either actual or potential under the ABA Standards. ABA
   Standards at 6; In re Keller, 369 Or 410, 417, 506 P3d 1101 (2022). Here, there was the potential for injury to Respondent’s client in the form of delay or denial of the conservatorship appointment stemming from Respondent’s apparent representation of both the protected party and proposed conservator.

4. Aggravating Circumstances. Aggravating circumstances include:

5. Prior disciplinary offenses. ABA Standard 9.22(a). Respondent received a
   30-day suspension in 2006 for violation of DR 6-101(A), the former rule regarding the duty to provide competent representation (current RPC 1.1). In 1998, Respondent received a public reprimand for violation of DR 9-101(C)(3), the former rule regarding safekeeping of property (current RPC 1.15-1(a)). Respondent received an admonition in 1994 for violation of DR 5-101(A), the former rule regarding a current-client conflict of interest. In analyzing prior offenses, the Oregon Supreme Court considers the following factors: (1) the relative seriousness of the prior offense and the sanction; (2) whether the prior offense is similar to the current case; (3) the number of prior offenses; (4) the recency of a prior offense; and (5) when did the conduct at issue in the current matter occur relative to the imposition of the sanction in the prior offense. In re Jones, 326 Or 195, 200, 951 P2d 149 (1997). Although generally not considered “discipline,” a prior admonition can result in an increased sanction when the conduct is close in time and of the same or similar nature to the conduct at issue. In re Bertoni, 363 Or 614, 644, 426 P3d 64 (2018), citing In re Cohen, 330 Or 489, 498-99, 8 P3d 953 (2000). Here, Respondent’s prior record of discipline would warrant less weight in aggravation due to the passage of time and because it chiefly involved different conduct. Respondent’s prior admonition, which involved similar conduct as occurred here, would also have less significance here as it

occurred more than 30 years ago. See In re Dugger, 334, Or 602, 625, 54 P3d 595, 610 (2002) (remoteness of prior offense diminishes its weight as an aggravating factor).

1. Vulnerability of victim. ABA Standard 9.22(h). Respondent’s elderly client
   had significant health issues and died several months after retaining Respondent.

2. Substantial experience in the practice of law. ABA Standard 9.22(i).
   Respondent has practiced law in Oregon since 1972.

3. Mitigating Circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include:

4. Absence of a dishonest or selfish motive. ABA Standard 9.32(b).

5. Full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude
   toward proceeding. ABA Standard 9.32(e).

Under the ABA Standards, public reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent in determining whether the representation of a client will materially adversely affect another client, and causes injury or potential injury to a client. ABA Standard 4.33.

Similar cases are in accord when the lawyer acts with a negligent mental state and there is no actual harm to the client. In In re Misfeldt, 24 DB Rptr 25 (2010), the lawyer was publicly reprimanded for negligently engaging in a current-client conflict of interest with facts similar as those that occurred here. In that case, the lawyer became attorney of record for the proposed conservator and guardian in a protective proceeding at a time when the lawyer was already attorney of record for the protected person. Other such cases include In re Slinde 37 DB Rptr 153 (2023) and In re Towne, 36 DB Rptr 12 (2022).

Consistent with the ABA Standards and Oregon case law, the parties agree that Respondent shall be publicly reprimanded for violation of RPC 1.7(a).

In addition, on or before August 1, 2025, Respondent shall pay $394.25 to the Bar for its reasonable and necessary costs incurred for court reporting and deposition transcripts. Should Respondent fail to pay $394.25 by August 1, 2025, the Bar may thereafter, without further notice to him, obtain a judgment against Respondent for the unpaid balance, plus interest thereon at the legal rate to accrue from the date the judgment is signed until paid in full.

Respondent acknowledges that he is subject to the Ethics School requirement set forth in BR 6.4 and that a failure to complete the requirement timely under that rule may result in his suspension or the denial of his reinstatement. This requirement is in addition to any other provision of this agreement that requires Respondent to attend continuing legal education (CLE) courses.

Respondent represents that, in addition to Oregon, he also is admitted to practice law in the jurisdictions listed in this paragraph, whether his current status is active, inactive, or suspended, and he acknowledges that the Bar will be informing these jurisdictions of the final disposition of this proceeding. Other jurisdictions in which Respondent is admitted: None.

Approval of this Stipulation for Discipline as to substance was given by the SPRB on September 14, 2024. Approval as to form by Disciplinary Counsel is evidenced below. The parties agree the stipulation is to be submitted to the Adjudicator on behalf of the Disciplinary Board for consideration pursuant to the terms of BR 3.6. EXECUTED this 11th day of June 2025. /s/ Wade P. Bettis Wade P. Bettis, OSB No. 720255 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: /s/ Amber Bevacqua-Lynott Amber Bevacqua-Lynott, OSB No. 990280 EXECUTED this 12th day of June 2025. OREGON STATE BAR By:/s/ Eric J. Collins Eric J. Collins, OSB No. 122997 Assistant Disciplinary Counsel