he’s available for testimony? “A. Yes.” In fact, the prosecutor informed the court that the state had prepared a “transport order” to bring Pierce to Portland. By definition, the foregoing evidence does not meet defendant’s burden of establishing that Pierce was unavailable. Alternatively, defendant might have attempted to establish, under OEC 804(l)(a), that, if called, Pierce would have exercised his privilege against self-incrimination and declined to testify. See State v. Farber, 295 Or 199, 209, 666 P2d 821 appeal dismissed 464 US 987 (1983) (describing procedure under Oregon law prior to adoption of OEC by which witness could be declared “unavailable” due to exercise of privilege not to testify); United States v. Pelton, 578 F2d 701, 709-10 (8th Cir) cert den 439 US 964 (1978) (<HOLDING>). However, defendant made no showing of that
recognizing that a lawyer hired by a third person to represent a client should exercise judgment on behalf of the client independent from the interests of the third person holding that an attorneys filing a notice of appearance on behalf of his or her client constitute a waiver of service of process by the client holding that lawyer who made deliberate misrepresentations to his client to conceal his negligence and improperly retained a fee from that client had a dishonest or selfish motive holding that even where a client was more sophisticated in business matters than the lawyer himself the lawyer should have assumed the client was relying on the lawyer for the legal aspects of the loan from the client to the lawyer to the same extent that the client would rely on the lawyer for advice were the client making the loan to a third person holding under federal version of oec 8041a that a statement by his lawyer that his client will claim the privilege will not suffice to show unavailability