Opinion ID: 1442167
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the trial panel's findings

Text: The Trial Panel found accused not guilty of violating the dishonesty or deception disciplinary rules, because Miljus understood that the properties in which he would obtain a security interest were encumbered in some respect. To these findings we would add that, as the Bar stipulated, lot book reports were provided to Miljus showing the ownership of the parcels before the mortgages were issued or the funds advanced. Concerning the words covenanting clear title in the preprinted mortgage form, accused testified that he was not aware of them. We accept his uncontradicted testimony, as did the Trial Panel. Whatever may be the standard of care required in a professional negligence setting, a misrepresentation does not violate DR 7-102 unless it is made knowingly or recklessly. DR 7-102(A)(5). As to the Columbia Boulevard property, we adopt the Trial Panel's description of the basis for accused's notarization of the mortgage, as follows: The Accused's testimony is that he believed Claxton had this authority because of the telephone call [wherein accused heard a woman's voice, whom he testified he believed was Hansen, authorize using her property as security] and the power of attorney. Claxton confirmed this, although his testimony lacked credibility. [4] Based on the evidence, the [Trial] Panel cannot find with certainty that the Accused acted deceitfully with regard to this transaction. Accused is not guilty of violating DR 1-102 or DR 7-102, the dishonesty and deception disciplinary rules. The remainder of this opinion concerns the conflict of interest disciplinary rules. The Trial Panel did not expressly find, nor has the Bar expressly alleged, that a lawyer-client relationship existed. Trial Panel findings on that subject follow: The [Trial] Panel finds that Miljus had a reasonable expectation that the Accused would act on behalf of his financial and legal interests. The Accused and Miljus were friends. Miljus knew the Accused was a lawyer. The Accused solicited the loans from Miljus. The Accused provided lot book searches and computer printouts showing tax appraised values [as lender requested]. The Accused prepared notes and mortgages and had the mortgages recorded. The Accused prepared a UCC form. These were prepared entirely for the benefit of Miljus. [5] The Accused knew Miljus was concerned about obtaining adequate security for his loans. The Accused never advised Miljus that he was not acting on his behalf, that he was not acting as his attorney, and that he should seek other counsel.      The Accused provided legal services and entered into business relations with Miljus and Hartleys   . The Accused provided services to multiple clients without making adequate disclosure and obtaining consent, assuming that they could have been validly obtained.