Opinion ID: 1137118
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Entering into business transaction with a client.

Text: The third charge of the complaint alleges that: In reference to the transactions described in the first cause of complaint, the Accused then entered into a business transaction with his client while the Accused and his client had differing interests therein and while the client should have expected the lawyer to exercise his professional judgment therein for the protection of the client, said acts being conducted without full disclosure to the client or the client's knowing consent. Both the Trial Board and the Disciplinary Review Board also found the accused to be not guilty of this charge. DR 5-104(A) provides: A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client if they have differing interests therein and if the client expects the lawyer to exercise his professional judgment therein for the protection of the client, unless the client has consented after full disclosure. It is contended by the Oregon State Bar that by his purchase of the real property which was the subject matter of the controversy, the accused violated DR 5-104(A), as well as DR 5-103(A), as previously discussed. We agree with the Trial Board and the Disciplinary Review Board, however, in their finding, in effect, that by the purchase of such property by the accused, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the accused did not enter into a business transaction with a client, within the meaning of DR 5-104(A). As also previously stated, we believe that after securing apparent approval of his purchase of the property from the general counsel of the Oregon State Bar, the accused should not be reprimanded for doing so. The Disciplinary Review Board found that the evidence was not clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was guilty of violating DR 5-104(A), as charged in the complaint. We agree with that finding.