Opinion ID: 1442167
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dishonesty and Deception[2]

Text: The Bar charged deception and dishonesty based on three theories: misrepresentation as to condition of title of each parcel by words preprinted on the stationer's mortgage form; misrepresentation that Claxton held an interest in the Columbia Boulevard property and had authority to sign for Vicki Hansen, accomplished by notarizing Claxton's signature for Vicki Hansen by power of attorney; and tender of the Columbia Boulevard mortgage to Miljus when accused had no reason to believe that Claxton was authorized to sign on Hansen's behalf. In briefing and argument, the Bar also claimed that accused's failure personally to sign any of the 24-percent replacement notes violated the deception or dishonesty disciplinary rules. This separate argument fails for lack of testimony to support it, from any party to the transaction, that accused was expected to sign or evincing surprise or concern that accused failed to sign. Those who testified said they knew accused did not sign the refinancing notes.