Opinion ID: 2571721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Presumptive Sanction For RPC 1.8(a)

Text: The Board unanimously adopted the conclusion that McKean violated RPC 1.8(a) by failing to adequately disclose to the Martins his conflict of interest due to entering into a business transaction with them. DP at 18 (finding 32). The presumptive sanction is suspension when a lawyer knows of a conflict of interest and does not fully disclose to a client the possible effect of that conflict, and causes injury or potential injury to that client. ABA Standard 4.32. As argued by the WSBA, there was no dispute that McKean knew that entering into a business transaction with the Martins involved a conflict of interest. McKean even testified himself that he told the Martins that the Professional Conduct Rules [ sic ] discourage or frown on attorneys being involved with their clients. TR at 411. McKean, however, did not sufficiently inform the Martins of the risks inherent in having their attorney as a business associate. DP at 9. The hearing examiner found that there was such a lack of detail in the business agreement that if Martin had sought counsel from an independent attorney, the advice received would have been general, thus depriving the Martins of making an informed consent. Id. We, therefore, affirm that suspension is the appropriate presumptive sanction for McKean's violation of RPC 1.8(a).