Opinion ID: 1368677
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Violations of DR 5-105

Text: We find that respondent violated DR 5-105 by representing the Buckmasters in the same matter in which he was already counsel for the Pietzes. Respondent had a duty to advocate for the Pietzes in the adoption proceeding. The natural mother's indication that she was not committed to the Pietzes did not lessen the respondent's duty of loyalty to them. The respondent breached that duty when he accepted profferred employment from the Buckmasters and recommended them as adoptive parents to the natural mother. It is difficult to imagine an action by respondent that would have been more adverse to the Pietzes' interest in the adoption. By accepting employment from the Buckmasters while already representing the Pietzes in the same adoption proceeding without full disclosure and consent, respondent violated DR 5-105(A); by continuing in the simultaneous representation and by ultimately recommending the Buckmasters over the Pietzes, respondent violated DR 5-105(B). We find that respondent also violated DR 5-105 by representing both the natural mother and the adoptive parents in an adoption proceeding. Respondent claimed that he always represented the natural mother in adoption proceedings. From his testimony, it appears that his usual custom was to maintain a file of potential adoptive parents from which the natural mother who is his client may select the couple best suited to adopt the baby. We do not expressly prohibit this practice. However, the attorney must take special care to avoid violating the ethical rules regarding representation of multiple clients. In this regard, two ethics opinions of the Arizona State Bar Committee on Rules of Professional Conduct are helpful. In Op. No. 94, February 12, 1962, the attorney represented adoptive parents in an independent adoption. The attorney advised the natural mother that she could obtain her own counsel; however, no lawyer purporting to represent her contacted the attorney in question. The attorney subsequently obtained the natural mother's written consent to adopt, after advising both her and the alleged father of its legal effect. The attorney then assisted in placing the child in the physical control of the adoptive parents, filed the petition to adopt, and accepted a $200 fee for his services. The committee opined that in considering how far the attorney can ethically participate in bringing about the ultimate adoption decree, [n]aturally, an attorney cannot represent both the natural parent and the adopting parents, and cannot conduct a baby brokerage business under the guise of practicing law. The committee found no unethical activity, however, because the lawyer made clear who he represented and advised the nonrepresented party to seek independent counsel. In Op. No. 72-2, January 26, 1972, the attorney who requested the opinion gave a detailed description of his adoption procedures. Before placing babies, who were usually referred to him by an obstetrician, the attorney reviewed the prospective parents' qualifications. He also explained his fee structure to either the adoptive parents or the natural parents, whichever party he represented. In each instance, the attorney attempted to make sure that the party that he did not represent would obtain counsel. The ethics committee stated that [h]is practice of seeking to have both parties to the adoption proceeding represented by independent counsel ... is clearly in compliance with the Code of Professional Responsibility.... By attempting to represent the natural mother, the Pietzes, and the Buckmasters in the same adoption proceeding, respondent violated DR 5-105(A) and (B). In independent adoptions an attorney cannot represent multiple parties absent disclosure and consent. See DR 5-105(C); Arden v. State Bar of California, 52 Cal.2d 310, 318-19, 341 P.2d 6, 10-11 (1959). REPRESENTING A CLIENT ZEALOUSLY The complaint filed against respondent also charged that respondent violated DR 7-101(A)(2), which provides: (A) A lawyer shall not intentionally:       (2) Fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services, but he may withdraw as permitted under DR 2-110, DR 5-102 and DR 5-105. Respondent agreed to represent the Pietzes in an adoption proceeding if the Pietzes located a baby available for adoption. A year and a half later, the Pietzes referred an expectant mother to the respondent. Although respondent initially contacted the Pietzes with regard to adopting the child, he ultimately recommended that the natural mother consent to adoption of the child by another couple that respondent also represented. The respondent conceded that the Pietzes' credentials as adoptive parents were impressive. It appears that he chose the Buckmasters over the Pietzes because the Buckmasters resided locally, and there was a possibility he would have to travel to Cochise County to represent the Pietzes, a possibility he was not excited about. Clearly, by recommending the Buckmasters over the Pietzes, respondent failed to carry out the contract of employment we have found existed between respondent and the Pietzes. We recognize that respondent may not have subjectively believed an attorney-client relationship existed between him and the Pietzes until he was confronted by Mr. Pietz after Pietz learned that someone else was to be adopting the baby. Thereafter, respondent knew, beyond any doubt, that the Pietzes had considered him as their lawyer, and they had expected him to handle the adoption. After receiving the information from Mr. Pietz, respondent did nothing. The committee and the commission concluded that the respondent had intentionally violated DR 7-101(A)(2). We agree with their conclusion. The respondent had placed himself in the position of conflict, but he had an obligation to carry out the contract of employment with the Pietzes. Having become fully aware of the situation, the least he should have done is secure counsel for the Pietzes and withdrawn from representing any other parties in the matter. DISCIPLINARY SANCTION The purpose of attorney discipline is not to punish the offending lawyer, but to protect the public, the profession and the system of justice by deterring similar activity by this attorney and others in the future. In re Neville, 147 Ariz. 106, 116, 708 P.2d 1297, 1307 (1985). We will give great weight to the recommendations of both the Local Committee and the Disciplinary Commission regarding what sanction is appropriate for violation of the disciplinary rules, but we must make the final decision. Id. at 115, 708 P.2d at 1306. Recently, in determining the appropriate sanction in attorney disciplinary proceedings, we also have looked for guidance to the Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, approved in February 1986 by the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association. [3] See In re Hegstrom, 153 Ariz. 286, 736 P.2d 370 (1987). We find these standards especially helpful in cases such as this one, where the recommendations of the Committee and the Commission are in conflict. [4] The ABA standards recommend suspension when an attorney knows of a conflict of interest, does not fully disclose to a client the possible effect of that conflict, and causes injury or potential injury to a client. Standard 4.32. The standards recommend only reprimand (censure) when the attorney is negligent in determining whether a conflict of interest exists, and causes injury or potential injury to a client. Standard 4.33. From the findings of facts made by the Committee and from our review of the record, it is unclear whether respondent was only negligent in determining a conflict of interest existed or whether he actually knew of the conflict. Respondent testified that his only client was the natural mother. We have determined that both the Pietzes and the Buckmasters were his clients as well. If respondent did not think either the Pietzes or the Buckmasters were his clients, he would not have known a conflict of interest existed. However, at a minimum, respondent was negligent in failing to recognize that the potential adoptive parents were his clients and that a conflict existed. Accordingly, we agree with the Local Committee that the appropriate sanction due respondent is censure. We decline to adopt the recommendation of the Disciplinary Commission that respondent be suspended for 30 days because neither the findings of the Local Committee nor our independent review of the record unequivocally reveals that respondent knew the conflict existed. Considering also that respondent has an otherwise flawless record in the almost 30 years he has practiced in Arizona, we find the recommendation of the Commission unduly harsh. See In re McGlothlen, 99 Wash.2d 515, 526, 663 P.2d 1330, 1336 (1983) (court will treat conflict of interest misconduct, standing alone, with relative leniency).