Opinion ID: 2094094
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Soliciting Money From Former Client

Text: Upon review of the record we find that the ethical violations involved in the borrowing of money from the Diegels have been proved. The language of DR 5-104(A) pertains to this violation. Our rules of conduct apply as long as the attorney has influence arising from a previous attorney-client relationship and the client is looking to the attorney to protect the client's interests. Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Sikma, 533 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 1995). In order to prove a violation, it is not necessary to show that the lawyer acted with bad or fraudulent intent. See, e.g., Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Mershon, 316 N.W.2d 895, 899 (Iowa 1982). Nor is it necessary to show that the client suffered economic harm. Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Postma, 430 N.W.2d 387, 392 (Iowa 1988); Committee on Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Baker, 269 N.W.2d 463, 466 (Iowa 1978). Full disclosure requires the lawyer to explain why the client should consult independent counsel before deciding whether to enter into the transaction. Sikma, 533 N.W.2d at 535-37. A violation of DR 4-101(B)(3) occurs when a lawyer has gained knowledge of a client's financial resources during the course of an attorney-client relationship and later uses that knowledge to solicit funds from the client. Id. at 536.