Opinion ID: 172814
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard Commercial Transaction Exception

Text: Riebesell contends he was not obligated to make the disclosures required by Rule 1.8(a) because the loans from Johnson were standard commercial transactions. He relies on Official Commentary to the Rule indicating it does not apply to standard commercial transactions between the lawyer and the client for products or services that the client generally markets to others, for example, banking or brokerage services, medical services, products manufactured or distributed by the client, and utilities' services. In such transactions, the lawyer has no advantage in dealing with the client, and the restrictions in paragraph (a) are unnecessary and impracticable. Colo. R. Prof'l Conduct 1.8, cmt. 1 (1993). We find the BAP's reasoning on this point compelling: [6] [Riebesell] attempts to characterize several transactions throughout which he represented [Johnson] as making loans; i.e., the purchase of stock in the small technology-based management consulting company in 1999, and the real estate investment in 2000. These transactions hardly elevate [Johnson] to the position of being in the banking or brokerage business. Further, [Johnson] testified that he had never loaned money to anyone personally prior to making the loan to [Riebesell]. [Riebesell's] argument regarding the standard commercial transaction exception is without merit, and little more than wishful thinking. Aplt.App. at 330. The loans to Riebesell were not standard commercial transactions exempt from the requirements of Rule 1.8(a). [7]