Opinion ID: 1913349
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Ethical Duties Violated.

Text: ODC and Respondent stipulated and the Board determined that the Respondent committed misconduct in violation of Rule 1.1 (a lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client), Rule 1.4(b) (a lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation), Rule 1.7(a) ([e]xcept as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: ... (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client... or by a personal interest of the lawyer.), Rule 1.7(b) ([n]otwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if: ... (1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal: and (4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.); Rule 1.16(a) (a lawyer shall not represent a client ... if: (1) the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law.); and Rule 1.16 Interpretive Guideline Re: Residential real estate transactions.