Opinion ID: 2622850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: conclusion

Text: Based on its findings of fact, the hearing panel concluded as a matter of law that Respondent violated KRPC 1.7(b), which provides: A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and (2) the client consents after consultation. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved. 2006 Kan. Ct. R. Annot 440. Respondent's KRPC 1.7(b) violation resulted from his dispensation of legal advice to Hughey at the same time he acquired some sort of interest in Hughey's business. Because Respondent's representation may have been materially limited by his own interests, the panel noted that the provisional statements of the rule must be met. The members of the panel did not think Respondent could reasonably have believed that his representation of Hughey would not be adversely affected. The hearing panel concluded that Respondent violated KRPC 1.8(a), which prohibits lawyers from entering into certain transactions without satisfying certain specific conditions. That rule provides: (a) A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security, or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless: (1) the transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner which can be reasonably understood by the client; and (2) the client is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel in the transaction; and (3) the client consents in writing thereto. 2006 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 417. Here, Respondent violated KRPC 1.8(a) when he entered into a business transaction with Hughey without complying with the terms of the rule. Because there was little agreement about the actual terms of the transaction, the panel found it impossible to determine whether the terms were fair and reasonable to the client. Moreover, the transaction and terms were not transmitted in writing; Hughey was not given the opportunity to seek advice from independent counsel; and Hughey did not consent to the transaction in writing. The hearing panel also concluded that Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(b), which provides: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. (2006 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 510-11). To support this violation, the panel relied on Respondent's numerous convictions and diversions for DUI, driving while suspended and driving while revoked, resisting arrest, criminal damage to property, unlawful discharge of a firearm, battery, and obstruction. Finally, the panel concluded that Respondent also violated KRPC 8.4(d), which provides that [i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. (2006 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 510-11). The panel cited Respondent's extensive criminal conduct as evidence of this violation.