Opinion ID: 1191846
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Representation of Vann (DR 5-101(A))

Text: Because of his relationships with MMG, STAPO, and Vann, Quiat asserts that he did not violate DR 5-101(A) with respect to his representation of Vann in the bankruptcy. His argument is similar to the one he made in Issue 1 above. He contends that because neither MMG nor STAPO, nor any of the partners or limited partners, including Quiat himself, were creditors of Vann (because Vann had made all of his required contributions to MMG and STAPO) there was no actual or potential differing interests between Quiat and Vann. DR 5-101(A) provides, Except with the consent of the client after full disclosure, a lawyer shall not accept employment if the exercise of his professional judgment on behalf of his client will be or reasonably may be affected by his own financial, business, property, or personal interests. We have determined that the board did not err in finding that the disclosure was inadequate. Our analysis does not end with this, however. In order for Quiat to have violated DR 5-101(A), it must be proven by clear and convincing evidence that his professional judgment will be or reasonably may be affected by his own financial, business, property, or personal interests. We agree with Quiat that the record does not support the conclusion that Quiat's business relationship with Vann would or reasonably might affect his professional judgment with respect to his representation of Vann.