November 2000

Disciplinary
State Bar of the State of Oregon
5200 SW Meadow Rd.
P.O. Box 1689
Lake Oswego OR 97035-0889

re: H. Lee Cook OSB 86172 Stephanie A. Wichman OSB 00424

Dear Disciplinary:

I am filing this complaint against H. Lee Cook OSB 86172 and Stephanie A. Wichman OSB 00424.

I am a defendant in a lawsuit entitled Julie Ann Lempea Brady and Steven C. Brady v. Martha * dba Artist Exchange Circuit Court, County of Washington C 991954 CL. I have been named as a defendant though there was no probably cause to so name me. Furthermore, after it was clearly demonstrated to these members of your bar that their claim against me was untenable they have vigorously pursued this frivolous claim. More on this matter in later months.

Today I wish to file charges against H. Lee Cook OSB 86172 and Stephanie A. Wichman OSB 00424 for violation of their duties as attorneys pursuant to Disciplinary Rule 6 DR6-101(C) (7), among others.

H. Lee Cook OSB 86172 and Stephanie A. Wichman OSB 00424 wrote me a letter proposing compromise in the above referenced litigation. I responded to this offer with a letter of my own. In this letter I stated:

"I am in receipt of your letter of July 21, 1999 and note its contents. This letter is written pursuant to your offer to compromise and is thus inadmissible for any purpose." [emphasis added]

....

"If plaintiff has a complaint now, please let it be stated and it will be corrected if valid."

Firstly, we will be agreeable to waive the 24 months for the sale of the negatives.

Secondly, also in the spirit of compromise, we would be agreeable to reduce the price of the negatives from $450 to $250. Finally, an agreement shall be signed by the parties whereby the plaintiffs and defendants shall never speak to each other again; shall never speak to others regarding the other parties; and because of the selling of the negatives for such a low price so soon after a wedding is unprecedented, that the agreement is confidential.

As compromise discussion are underway we would request that you take no action to file a bogus default for a period of 30 days.

If we do not hear from you by July 29, 1999 we will proceed and actively pursue this litigation to its final conclusion. As you can see we vigorously defend ourselves. {emphasis added}Exhibit One, incorporated by reference

In November 2000, I filed a motion for summary judgment to dispose of this matter. One of the issues to be decided in this motion is that I am not a party to the agreement between Artist Exchange/ Private Practice Attorney and plaintiffs. I have never met these plaintiffs, never had any dealings with them and am only a one hour a week employee of Mr. Private Practice Attorney.

As such, liability on my part is central to the issue of the summary judgment motion. Please see, Summary Judgment Motion by Martha * regarding liability of Martha *, et al. Exhibit Two, incorporated by reference

Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 040 40.190 Rule 408 states in relevant part:

(1)(a) Evidence of ...offering...a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability...

(b) Evidence..or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible.

On November 22, 2000, H. Lee Cook OSB 86172 and Stephanie A. Wichman OSB 00424 filed an opposition to my motion and stated that Martha * is an appropriate party to this action. These Oregon Bar members stated, at page 6 of Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Artist Exchange’s Motion for Summary Judgment:

"Finally, in a letter written by Martha * dated July 22, 1999 (attached herein as Exhibit 6), Martha * wrote, "‘A review of the contract between Martha * and Daniel Private Practice Attorney and Julie Lempea," clearly indicating she was a party to the agreement.

The letter also included a settlement offer to plaintiffs by Martha *, using the descriptive term "we" referring to herself and Daniel Private Practice Attorney as part of Artist Exchange.’" {emphasis added}

H. Lee Cook OSB 86172 Stephanie A. Wichman OSB 00424 Opposition to Martha * motion

Exhibit Three to State Bar Complaint, incorporated by reference.

As such, Cook and Wichman clearly knew that the letter was a counter offer to the settlement offer that these Oregon Bar members had made to Martha *. {"The letter also included a settlement offer to plaintiffs by Martha *", these Oregon Bar members instructed the Court}

It appears that these Oregon Bar members attempted to lure me into making statements, in the course of compromise negotiations, which these Oregon Bar members could take out of context, to use in attempts to show I was liable for the alleged wrongful acts of my employer, Daniel Private Practice Attorney.

I merely write checks and make bank deposits for Mr. Private Practice Attorney, acts which take one hour a week at most. But your bar members have sued me and continue this litigation long past the time when it is obvious that their claim against me is frivolous. I will later address the violations of Oregon Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-102 (a member may not ‘file a suit, assert a position...when it is obvious that such action serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another’)

However, by luring me into responding to their settlement offer and by using my statements in the course of a settlement procedure, to take my statements out of context and misrepresent my meaning to the Court and thereafter intentionally offering inadmissible evidence to the Washington County Court, your bar members H. Lee Cook OSB 86172 and Stephanie A. Wichman OSB 00424 have clearly violated Disciplinary Rule 6 DR6-101(C) (7), among others.

In appearing in the lawyer’s professional capacity before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not...Intentionally...violate any established rule of...evidence.

Disciplinary Rule 6 DR6-101(C) (7)

Here, your bar members admit that the document placed into evidence is inadmissible. Thus they admit that their unethical conduct is "intentional" as required by Disciplinary Rule 6 DR6-101(C) (7) They say so in their opposition to motion. Quoting your bar members; "The letter also included a settlement offer to plaintiffs by Martha *, using the descriptive term "we" referring to herself and Daniel Private Practice Attorney as part of Artist Exchange." {emphasis added}

H. Lee Cook OSB 86172 Stephanie A. Wichman OSB 00424 Opposition to Martha * motion

I look forward to your investigation of your bar members and look forward to cooperating fully with investigation of violation of Disciplinary Rule 6 DR6-101(C) (7) and a future investigation of violation of DR 7-102 of H. Lee Cook OSB 86172 and Stephanie A. Wichman OSB 00424.
Sincerely,

Martha *

****

December 14^th 2000

Jeff Saprio, Esq.
Head of Disciplinary Department
Oregon State Bar
5200 SW Meadows Rd.
P O Box 1689
Lake Oswego OR 97035-0889

Dear Counselor:

I have filed a complaint against Oregon attorneys H. Lee Cook and Stephanie A. Wichman. They have lured me into a settlement negotiation and then attempted to enter into evidence my offer of compromise.

Mary A. Cooper, Esq. summarily dismissed my complaint stating that Cook and Wichman have argued that they are submitting this document into evidence "not to prove liability....but to prove that you were in fact a party to the contract."

That is exactly what ORS 40.190 Rule 408 prohibits. Furthermore, statements made in the course of settlement negotiations are inadmissible. I have outlined the clear cut violation of the ORS to Ms. Cooper. I have outlined the clear cut intentional motive behind your members violation.

I hereby enclose further research on this issue to show that under the ORS, the FRE and even California Evidence that there is no possible way that this document is admissible.

Therefore, I urge that you reopen this matter and fulfill your responsibility to police your members’ compliance with very specific and clear cut Oregon statutes.

Sincerely,

Martha *

cc:

Senator Ryan Deckart, Salem Oregon    Representative Max Williams, Salem Oregon

****

re: H. Lee Cook OSB 86172Stephanie A. Wichman OSB 00424

Dear Disciplinary:

I am filing this complaint against H. Lee Cook OSB 86172 and Stephanie A. Wichman OSB 00424.

I am a defendant in a lawsuit entitled Julie Ann Lempea Brady and Steven C. Brady v. Martha * dba Artist Exchange Circuit Court, County of Washington C 991954 CL.

I filed an affadavit in which I stated under oath the following:

That I have no ownership interest in Artist Exchange;

that I have never met nor communicated in any way with plaintiffs Lempea and Brady;

that I therefore never made any representation to Lempea or Brady and

that my only contact with Artist Exchange is that I make bank deposits for my husband, the owner of A Special Day and Artist Exchange and

that this takes up in total approximately one hour a week.

From this plaintiffs and your bar members have sued me (but not my husband and the owner of Artist Exchange) in apparent violation of DR 7 102(A)(1) which states "a lawyer shall not File a suit, assert a position...or take any other action on behalf of a client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to maliciously injury another." Plaintiffs and your bar members have sued me and continued their litigation against me as the wife of Private Practice Attorney, knowing that I have no involvement in his business, have never met plaintiffs, have never made any representations of any kind to them of any kind, etc. They have apparently sued me to get to Private Practice Attorney knowing that there would be no insurance defense for me or that it would be difficult or impossible for me to defend myself as a layman and difficult or impossible for me to hire an Oregon attorney.

As such, your bar members’ conduct have fallen squarely in the conduct forbidden by DR 7 102(A)(2).

Your bar members have also violated DR 7 102 (A)(5) which states "a lawyer shall not Knowingly make a false statement of law or fact."

Here, your bar members have made a false statement to the Court. In their document Plaintiff’s (sic) Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant Artist Exchange’s Motion for Summary Judgment they state;

"...Martha *, handled some day-to-day- business aspects of Artist Exchange..."

This is completely false. The affidavits {attached} show I have no "day to day" handling of the business aspects of Artist Exchange but only take up 1 hour a week handling the deposits of Private Practice Attorney, A Special Day and Artist Exchange. As such, my contact with Artist Exchange as an employee could be 20 minutes a week.

As such, your bar members have violated your rules by lying to Court. I look forward to cooperating with the Oregon Bar in its fulfillment of its duties in enforcing the Oregon Rules of Professional Responsibility.

Sincerely,

Martha *

****

DISPOSITION BY THE OREGON STATE BAR

December 11, 2000  Letter from Oregon State Bar Attorney Mary A. Cooper  "This rule has never been construed however, to be violated by attorneys who have offered evidence that the other side contends is inadmissible...there is no Oregon case law holding that it was unethical to offer it in the first place.

..."Mr. Cook and Ms. Wichman may be able to argue that OEC 408 does not apply because they are seeking to use the evidence not to prove liability on the contract...but to prove that you were in fact a party to the contract. (sic)

Accordingly, the Bar will take no further action on this matter.  Thank you for expressing your concern about one of our members.  (sic) Mary A. Cooper"

****

Letter from Jeffrey D. Sapiro, head of Disciplinary Oregon State Bar  January 19, 2000

"The fact that we have "filed" letters from you and Ms. * in our file does not suggest that we have ignored them or failed to review their contents.  Furthermore this office's expressed intent to forward this matter to the State Professional Responsibility Board is consistent with the applicable Rules of Procedure."