Opinion ID: 1402529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the charges lodged against the respondent

Text: ¶ 7 The charges against Arthur rest on three loans he solicited and received from two clients. Beginning in 1994, Arthur performed estate planning among other legal services for an elderly couple, Mr. and Mrs. Detrick. [12] While providing these services, he obtained financial information about his clients and used that knowledge to approach them about lending him money. On 25 October 1995 he obtained a $6,000 loan from the Detricks and signed a promissory note. In the following year, he received from Mrs. Detrick [13] two more loans in the amounts of $4,500 and $3,000, neither of which transactions was memorialized by an agreement in writing. [14] All three loans were unsecured. It was Mrs. Detrick's understanding that Arthur would make timely repayments at a 7% annual interest rate. The terms of the latter two loans were not reduced to writing [15] and sent to Mrs. Detrick. Nor did Arthur request that she seek the advice of independent legal counsel to protect her interests. [16] The record does not reveal that Arthur obtained the written consent of his clients, a step that is required by ORPC Rule 1.8(a)(3). [17] ¶ 8 Arthur failed to repay the loans despite repeated reassurances he would do so. Mrs. Detrick eventually sought the assistance of another lawyer to help her secure repayment of the obligation that was then in default. Only after Mrs. Detrick contacted the Bar, and professional disciplinary proceedings were imminent, did Arthur make arrangements to repay the loans. [18]