was enclosing checks totaling that amount. Those statements cannot be reconciled. Perhaps Martinis intended to agree to the terms in the accused’s offer ($1,400 and return of the horse). Perhaps Martinis intended to offer $2,210 and provide for Driscoll to keep the horse. Or, Martinis might have meant to agree to return the horse and offer an extra $810 to make up for his client’s refusal to pay attorney fees. In short, Martinis’s intentions were not clear from his November 25,1996, letter. When the accused realized that Martinis was under the mistaken impression that Martinis had tendered the amount on which the parties had agreed, the accused had a duty to clarify Martinis’s offer before disbursing all the proceeds from the checks. See In re Benett, 331 Or 270, 278, 14 P3d 66 (2000) (<HOLDING>); In re Zumwalt, 296 Or 631, 635-36, 678 P2d
holding that a payment made by certified check rather than the customary regular check was outside the ordinary course of dealings between the parties holding that drawer of check is liable only for the amount originally stated by drawer on check even though the drawers negligence facilitated the wrongful alteration of the amount on the check and the payment of a larger amount to the payee holding that accused lawyer violated dr 1102a3 by negotiating extra settlement checks after failing to correct opposing counsels belief that prior settlement check had not cleared when accused knew that check had cleared holding that investigation was insufficient prior to prosecution for forgery of check holding that accused lawyer violated dishonesty rule by retaining double payment of settlement amount when second settlement check had been sent in error