Opinion ID: 2506574
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the actual or potential injury

Text: It was reasonable for Mrs. Varner to believe Respondent knew how to process an OPM claim after he made such assurances. But he was completely unaware of the process and the potential harm Mrs. Varner could suffer if her claim was not processed according to OPM procedures. At a minimum, there was serious potential injury to Mrs. Varner based upon Respondent's lack of diligence. Furthermore, the profession is potentially injured each time one of its own fails to recognize that the practice of law is a profession with ethical obligations to the clients served and not simply a matter of running a business. Here, the impression Respondent left with Mrs. Varner was that he was much more interested in making money than protecting her interests. Even though the Hearing Board finds a potential for serious injury, we are mindful that Mrs. Varner's physical and mental condition made it difficult for Respondent to complete her objectives following final orders. [25] Nevertheless, Mrs. Varner had a reasonable expectation that Respondent would secure survival benefits from her former husband's federal pension.