► Attorney Christopher Cauble of Grants Pass, OR; ethical troll

The State of Oregon presented Lucinda Giorgetti with a law license in 1995 after she graduated from the Northwestern School of Law.

The Disciplinary Counsel found Lucy guilty of engaging in the following misconduct.

• Chris simultaneously represented attorney William Hiljus and a group (Group) of clients
• Representation of Hiljus and others, caused a significant risk that the Chris’ representation of one or more clients would be materially limited by
• Chris’ responsibilities to another client, or by his personal interest
• members of the Group paid the Chris to represent them in suing Ticor as a Group, and that some of these client funds were diverted to pay the individual
• legal fees of Hiljus
• Chris failed to properly identify and safeguard the Group’s funds
• Improperly with legal fees from his trust account prior to earning same
• Over the course of two years, Hiljus arranged numerous mortgage loans between various local builders and individual investors
• Hiljus told them that the loans were safe and would be disbursed via a construction disbursement company
• Hiljus wrote escrow instructions for these loans and performed many other tasks in facilitating or arranging these loans
• Hiljus was paid substantial commissions/fees for his efforts
• Commingled client funds with personal funds
• During this two-year period, Hiljus did not have a mortgage broker’s license, a fact that Chris was aware of
• There was substantial evidence that Hiljus may have made numerous misrepresentations to people making the loans, said evidence being obvious during the taking of various depositions during arbitration hearings
• After the arbitration hearing, knew or should have known that Hiljus might not have been honest with the investors
• Chris owed Hiljus a duty of loyalty when the investors who became the Group were brought to meet him
• Chris was bound by duties of competent representation and loyalty to the members of the Group
• Chris could not discharge his duties to the Group clients without violating his duty to Hiljus.
• Chris could not, and did not, advise the members of the Group about the pros and cons of testifying or appearing on behalf of Hiljus
• in the Arbitration
• Chris failed to disclose or discuss with the Group the dangers of designating Hiljus as the representative of the Group or take any action to protect the Group’s interest from Hiljus
• Engaged in an actual conflict of interest, both due to his self-interest in getting Hiljus’ past due fees paid and due to his loyalty to Hiljus at the
• time he was retained by the Group
• Chris had several opportunities to identify that he had a conflict and withdraw, but he chose not to
• Failed to obtain the informed consent of the members of the Group before undertaking to represent them
• Failed to provide adequate information about the material risks of suing Ticor
• Failed to explain several risks, including the possibility that Ticor would probably counter that Hiljus was liable
• Failed to provide adequate, or even any, information about the reasonably available alternatives to the proposed course of action to the Group regarding filing suit against Ticor
• Engaged in a pattern of misconduct
• Failed to his duty to Hiljus, but he failed to protect his other clients in favor of Hiljus
• Failed to discuss the risks of testifying on behalf of Hiljus with members of the Group
• Failed to safeguard client funds
• Clearly intended to proceed with representing the Group regardless of the clear conflicts inherent therein
• Misconduct involved a dishonest and/or selfish motive
• Misconduct involved multiple offenses
• Chris’ conduct showed a pattern of disregard for inconvenient facts and an utter unwillingness to consider either the possibility that he had erred or that his choices could have harmed his clients in the Group
• Throughout the disciplinary proceedings the Chris minimized his conduct and rationalized his behavior, often noting that other members of the Group had not filed ethics complaints, as though that somehow absolved him of responsibility for his actions and choices
• The victims of Chris’ conduct were vulnerable as many of them were senior citizens and were clearly unsophisticated investors
• Exhibited indifference to making restitution to the victims of his conduct 

As a direct consequence of his misconduct, the apologists for Attorney Misfits sitting on the Oregon Supreme Court punished Chris by gifting him with a complimentary45-day suspension of his law license.

And lastly, as one would suspect,Chris fails to mention the misconduct set forth above on his self-serving website at www.thecaublefirm.com. Apparently, Chris decided to conceal this relevant information from prospective clients so that he would not limit her future victim pool.

As we speak (ca. September 2020) Keith practices with Cauble Selvig & Whittington LLP at 111 SE 6th Street in Grants Pass, Oregon.