Opinion ID: 2631751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Count IVDid Mr. Haley violate RPC 1.8(h) when he entered into an agreement with Mr. Guditz to limit his and his law firm's liability for any malpractice?

Text: ¶ 47 RPC 1.8(h) provides: A lawyer who is representing a client in a matter: (h) Shall not make an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer's liability to a client for malpractice unless permitted by law and the client is independently represented in making the agreement, or settle a claim for such liability with an unrepresented client or former client without first advising that person in writing that independent representation is appropriate in connection therewith. ¶ 48 The September 24, 1993, agreement provided that Octal and Guditz release any claim they may have against Haley and [Graybeal Jackson] for improper or inadequate services on Octal v. Taylor. CP at 215. ¶ 49 There is no writing that reflects that Mr. Haley advised Mr. Guditz that independent representation was appropriate. Mr. Haley did not inform Mr. Guditz that independent representation was appropriate. Mr. Guditz did not seek and was not represented by independent counsel when he entered into the agreement limiting liability. ¶ 50 Therefore, the findings of fact support the conclusion of law that Mr. Haley violated RPC 1.8(h) when he entered into the September 24, 1993, agreement to release liability. Mr. Guditz was not represented by counsel or informed that such independent representation was appropriate.