Jordan Ramis - Disclosure and Informed Consent Lake Oswego Vancouver Bend
JORDAN Two Centerpointe Dr.,6th Floor 1499 SE Tech Center PI.,#380 360 SW Bond St.,Suite 510
Lake Oswego,OR 97035 Vancouver,WA 98683 Bend,OR 97702
503-598-7070 360-567-3900 541-647-2979
ATTORNEYS AT LAW www.jordanramis.com
HAND DELIVERY
July 14, 2015
Marty Wine
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard OR 97223
Re: Disclosure and Informed Consent
City of Tigard / Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland
Our File No. 50014-36798
Dear Marty:
You have asked us to represent the City of Tigard ("Tigard") in two lawsuits brought by the Home
Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland (the "HBA"), challenging system development charges
adopted in Tigard Ordinance No. 15-08 and Resolution No. 15-15 (Washington County Circuit Court
Case Nos. C15-2980 and C15-2979) (collectively, the "Project"). We also represent the HBA's interest
in another lawsuit, not involving system development charges, involving an appeal of a Public Utility
Commission order, currently before the Court of Appeals ("Matters"). We believe that we can represent
Tigard on the Project, if both Tigard and the HBA consent to this representation. While we may
represent Tigard on other matters involving the HBA in the future, the scope of this notice and consent
letter is limited exclusively to the Project.
This letter is a request for your written consent, as discussed above, regarding the potential "conflict of
interest" arising out of the Project. We propose to represent Tigard on this Project, while also
continuing to represent the HBA on its Matters. We are requesting separate written consent from the
HBA to this same proposal.
The Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct ("RPC") prohibit an attorney from representing multiple
clients if that representation creates a conflict of interest. The prohibition applies unless the clients both
provide informed consent in writing to the representation. Consequently, we can only represent Tigard
in this matter if both Tigard and the MBA give informed consent confirmed in writing.
RPC 1.0 provides in relevant part:
(b) "Confirmed in writing," when used in reference to the informed consent of
a person, denotes informed consent that is given in writing by the person or a writing
that a lawyer promptly transmits to the person confirming an oral informed consent . .
. . If it is not feasible to obtain or transmit the writing at the time the person gives
informed consent, then the lawyer must obtain or transmit it within a reasonable time
thereafter.
(g) "Informed consent" denotes the agreement by a person to a proposed
course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated adequate information and
50014-36798 1255038 1 DOC)(ORF17/14/2015
J O RDAN RAM I S Pc
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Marty Wine
July 14, 2015
Page 2
explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to the
proposed course of conduct.
Additionally, the RPCs prohibit one attorney or the same law firm from representing two (or more)
clients when their interests are directly in conflict.
Explanation of conflict. Except as provided in RPC 1.7(b), RPC 1.7(a) prohibits a lawyer or the same
law firm from representing two (or more) clients if the representation involves a current conflict of
interest. Under this rule a current conflict exists if one of two situations is present: 1) representation of
one client is directly adverse to another client; or 2) there is a significant risk that representation of one
client will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibility to another client.
Risk of material limitation. In deciding whether or not to consent, you should also determine whether
the dual representation presents a "significant risk" of a "material limitation" on our ability to represent
Tigard on the Project. For example, clients who are asked to waive or consent to a conflict typically
should consider whether there is a risk that "their" lawyer will be less zealous or eager on their behalf
due to the representation of the other client. Similarly, clients should consider whether there is a risk
that the lawyer could use the client's confidences or secrets adversely to the client. We believe, under
the proposal outlined in this letter, there is no risk of material limitation. However, you must evaluate
any risk yourself before providing the requested consent.
Consent. RPC 1.7(b) provides that notwithstanding the existence of a current conflict of interest under
paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent
representation to each affected client;
(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;
(3) the representation does not obligate the lawyer to contend for something on behalf of one client
that the lawyer has a duty to oppose on behalf of another client; and
(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
Notwithstanding the identified conflict of interest, we seek your consent to our limited representation of
Tigard pursuant to RPC 1.7(b). Provided that we restrict our scope of work as outlined in this letter, we
believe we can undertake the proposed representation. Using the RPC 1.7(b) analysis, (1) we believe
that we will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the
proposed representation is not prohibited by law; and (3) our work on the Project would not obligate us
to contend for something on behalf of one client that we would have a duty to oppose on behalf of the
other client.
If an unforeseen conflict arises that prevents us from effectively representing Tigard with regard to the
Project, we would be forced to disengage from representation, and could not represent either Tigard or
the HBA with respect to the Project. However, Tigard understands and agrees that we would continue
our representation of Tigard on all other Tigard matters and the HBA on their Matters.
50014-36798 1255038 1.DOCXIDRFl7/14/2015
JORDAN RAMI S Pc
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Marty Wine
July 14, 2015
Page 3
Under the RPC, we are also prohibited from representing Tigard, adversely to the HBA without your
consent if, during the course of our prior representation of any client we learned any confidential
information that could be used adversely to that client in our work on the Project. We do not believe
this is an issue.
We are required by RPC 1.0(g) to recommend that each of you seek independent legal advice to help
you determine whether your consent should be given. Whether you do so is up to you.
Please give me a call if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
JORDAN RAMIS PC
Timothy V. Ramis
Admitted in Oregon
tim.ramis@jordanramis.com
OR Direct Dial (503) 598-5573
By signature below, Tigard hereby consents to the representation by Jordan Ramis Pc as set
forth above:
[name]
Title: n e�
Date: 7. 14-2-0
50014-36798 1255038 1.DOCXIDRF/7/14/2015