Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to French
In re Conduct of Baer
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Peter E. Baer (Defendant) was an attorney admitted to practice law in Oregon. His wife became interested in buying a house, and Defendant offered to handle the necessary legal work. The owners of the house, the Petersons, believed that Defendant was representing both his wife and them as clients. In fact Defendant represented only his wife’s interests, but merely told the Petersons that they could hire another attorney to review his work. Defendant also acted as the escrow agent for the transaction. The parties came to an agreement that Mrs. Baer would make a down payment and assume the mortgage on the house, and then pay the remaining balance by April 2, 1981. The transaction went according to plan until Mrs. Baer was unable to pay the remaining balance. Defendant had told the Petersons that they would get their house back if the balance was not paid in a timely fashion, but when they tried to repossess the house, Defendant told the Petersons that Mrs. Baer owned a part interest in the house and that the Petersons would need to sell the house and reimburse Mrs. Baer. The Petersons hired an attorney, who informed Defendant that he had a severe conflict of interest and should settle the matter. Defendant responded by filing suit against the Petersons in both state and federal court. He was then subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the Oregon State Bar (Plaintiff). The Bar’s Trial Board found him guilty of failing to refuse employment when his interests could impair his independent professional judgment, having improper business relations with a client, and accepting and continuing employment when the interest of another client could impair his independent professional judgment. The Trial Board’s recommendation was a public reprimand and a requirement that Defendant pass a legal ethics examination. The Disciplinary Review Board affirmed the findings and agreed with the ethics examination requirement, but recommended a 30-day suspension from the bar. Defendant appealed to the state supreme court.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.