Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that presently exists or has existed in the past. A promise relating to future events without a present intent not to fulfill the promise is not actionable.") (citation omitted). 31 . See Mer also testified that his debt to Cook was not discharged in the bankruptcy proceeding and he is continuing to repay that debt. 42 . See ABA Standards, Definitions, § 1.1 (defining "knowledge" as "the conscious awareness of the nature or attendant circumstances of the conduct but without the conscious objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result"); People v. Foreman, 966 P.2d 1062, 1065 (Colo.1998) ("Ignorance of the requirements of a Rule of Professional Conduct does not transform knowing conduct into conduct that is merely negligent."); People v. Potter, 966 P.2d 1060, 1062 (Colo.1998) (<HOLDING>). 43 . Although a client's deprivation of the 
 Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) holding that although a lawyer who violated the predecessor to colo rpc 18a did not have the conscious objective to deceive his client or to take advantage of her he was aware of the circumstances and the consequences of his conduct his mental state was therefore greater than one of negligence (C) holding that an attorney who committed extrinsic fraud did not violate iowas analogue to colo rpc 33 because he engaged in fraud in his own dissolution proceeding rather than while representing a client (D) 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 (E) holding that the government did not have to prove that the defendant knew that his acts violated the clean water act but merely that he was aware of the conduct that resulted in the permits violation
Output (English): holding that the government did not have to prove that the defendant knew that his acts violated the clean water act but merely that he was aware of the conduct that resulted in the permits violation