Opinion ID: 1402529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: entering a business transaction with a client

Text: ¶ 9 The Bar has charged Arthur with violating ORPC Rule 1.8(a) [19] by entering into a business transaction with a client without complying with the prescribed method for avoiding a potential conflict of interest between himself and the client. This allegation stands coupled with one that to the disadvantage of the clients and in breach of ORPC Rule 1.8(b) [20] Arthur used financial information gleaned in the course of his representation. ¶ 10 While representing a client a lawyer is often privy to financial information that may lead the legal practitioner to approach a client about entering into a business transaction. [21] Once in a disciplinary hearing evidence of a lawyer/client business transaction is adduced by clear and convincing evidence, [22] the burden shifts to the attorney to show that the business dealing in question was indeed free from legal taint. ¶ 11 Arthur admits that he procured a loan from his client without complying with the procedure prescribed by Rule 1.8(a) and (b). By his conduct Arthur has impermissibly used information obtained in the course of client representation with a view to entering into a business transaction for a purely personal purpose. There is here no question about the respondent's breach of professional discipline. The sole issue is whether a more severe sanction should be imposed. ¶ 12 On de novo consideration, we adopt the PRT's findings of fact and conclusions of law, holding that more severe discipline is warranted because respondent entered into a business transaction with a client and used information gained in the course of representation to the client's disadvantage.