He did not explain to her that he represented an adverse party. The PRT further stated that Respondent's actions amounted to a violation of the bankruptcy code's automatic stay provision as it was an attempt to collect a debt. Respondent directly violated this provision. He admits that he did not obtain the consent of both clients. He did not explain the conflict of interest to Hankins.
Loyalty is an essential element in the lawyer's relationship to a client.
Comments, Rule 1.7, Rules of Professional Conduct. Although Respondent threatened to use information he discovered during their discussion against Hankins, this was done prior to her hiring him. Ultimately the information was not used to her detriment. Respondent practiced bankruptcy law. He was well-versed in its intricacies.