Opinion ID: 1442167
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: testimony of putative client

Text: We turn to an examination of the testimony on which the Bar relies to establish the lawyer-client relationship. The Hartleys were not called as witnesses. Claxton testified that accused had never been his lawyer. Miljus' testimony follows: Q. In your mind, Mr. Miljus, did you feel that in procuring these reports and in playing the role that he played in this transaction, that he was acting as your attorney? A. In a sense, yes. Q. Well, tell the panel what you mean, please, when you say `in a sense.' A. I told him I would loan the money on the property providing he would provide me a title that showed what the encumbrances was [ sic ] on the property, and that whatever legal work that was done there would be handled.      Q. You knew at that time, of course, that [accused] was an attorney? A. Yes, I knew he was an attorney. Q. And did you know that he was president of Marine Transport? A. Yes, I had a document that showed that. Q. Did [accused] ever tell you that he was not acting as your attorney in connection with the loan transaction in December of 1979? A. That was never brought up. Q. Did he tell you that he was acting as attorney for Marine Transport and/or the Hartleys in connection with that transaction? A. No. [3] Concerning the July 1980 notes, secured only by UCC form notice of assignment of accounts receivable, and signed by accused as president and as an individual, Miljus testified: Q. And is it your understanding that [accused] prepared those filing papers? A. Yes. Q. And is it your belief that in preparing those papers, he was acting as your attorney? A. Yes. Q. In order to protect your interests? A. Yes.      CROSS-EXAMINATION BY [ACCUSED] (who represented himself in the proceeding): Q. Mr. Miljus, Mr. Renner asked you if it was not your belief that [accused] was acting as your attorney in consummating these transactions. A. Yes. Q. Now, I'm going to differentiate here. Did you pay [accused] any money for any legal work? A. No. Q. Go ahead. Do you want to expand on the answer? A. The basis of my loaning the money was if I could get a title showing the liens and encumbrances on the property and the legal portion of the work being done for these loans, that was why I loaned the money, because I know nothing about loaning money, and that was my recollection of why I made the loans.      Q. But as far as relying on legal advice from [accused], the work that [accused] did was basically providing documentation for  to you; is that not correct? A. Correct, providing documentation and handling whatever legal work was associated with the loans. Q. But [accused] never acted as your attorney in the transactions? A. Well, he  I put it the way I  the way I loaned the money, was if this was being done, I would loan the money. Q. You've used in response to one of Mr. Renner's questions, you said you told [accused]. You told [accused] under what circumstances you would loan money; is that not correct? A. That's right. Q. So there was no  [accused] was not  you were not consulting with him as an attorney as to whether or not you should loan it, you were telling him that you were  under what circumstances you would, in fact, loan it; is that not correct? A. Yes, I would  yes. Elaborating on his requirement that whatever legal work that was done there would be handled, Miljus testified, Provided, you know, the legal, you know, provide the title and make sure it was authenticated. Accused testified that he represented only MTC.