Opinion ID: 2561940
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: written and oral disclosures

Text: Next, Rost argues that the hearing panel implicitly found, without any legal support, that Rost's written and oral disclosures to clients  that Rost was retired from practicing law  were insufficient, as a matter of law, to prevent potential clients from being confused. He points to the fact that he changed his sign to read Rost & Rost Consulting, Inc. and his testimony that he told all of his clients that he was retired and not practicing law. Inexplicably, he then embarks on a discussion of what is required to establish a client's waiver of a conflict of interest. We do not read the final hearing report as making any such matter-of-law finding. To the extent Rost asks us to reweigh the evidence, we decline the invitation. Rost's better argument would have been to assert that changing the name on his sign and telling his clients he was retired from the practice of law were reasonable measures to assure that the clients knew that his law-related services were not legal services subject to the protections of the client-lawyer relationship. Under the circumstances, however, that argument would not have been persuasive. Given the lack of sophistication of his clients and the many other indicia that Rost was still performing legal services, more was required from him to meet his notification burden.