(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary, 421 (5th ed 1979)). This court also has suggested that the proper approach to defining the conduct that constitutes “dishonesty” is on a case-by-case basis. See Hockett, 303 Or at 159 (noting with approval that courts of other jurisdictions determine whether acts constitute dishonesty on case-by-case basis). To evaluate the accused’s conduct in response to Martinis’s November 25,1996, letter, we first must evaluate that letter. The first paragraph states that “[a] 11 other points of your counter offer are acceptable.” The “counter offer” to which Martinis was referring included payment of $1,400 and return of the horse. The second paragraph, however, states that Martinis was tendering $2,210 “in full satisfaction” of the parties’ dispute a (1984) (<HOLDING>). The accused acted dishonestly in negotiating
holding a settlement privilege exists as to thirdparty discovery of settlement negotiations holding that rule 10b5 damages must be offset by amount of settlement holding that because the alleged settlement was never approved by the court under rule 9019 the settlement agreement was unenforceable 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 accused lawyer violated dishonesty rule by retaining double payment of settlement amount when second settlement check had been sent in error