Opinion ID: 2631751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Count IIIDid Mr. Haley violate RPC 1.8(e) when he agreed to finance the settlement in the Taylor lawsuit?

Text: ¶ 44 RPC 1.8(e) provides: A lawyer who is representing a client in a matter: (e) Shall not, while representing a client in connection with contemplated or pending litigation, advance or guarantee financial assistance to his or her client, except that: (1) A lawyer may advance or guarantee the expenses of litigation, including court costs, expenses of investigation, expenses of medical examination, and costs of obtaining and presenting evidence, provided the client remains ultimately liable for such expenses; and (2) In matters maintained as class actions only, repayment of expenses of litigation may be contingent on the outcome of the matter. ¶ 45 In the September 24, 1993, agreement, Graybeal Jackson agreed to finance the settlement in the Taylor lawsuit. [5] At this time Mr. Haley had withdrawn from representation and Mr. Johnson was the attorney representing Mr. Guditz and Octal for the Taylor settlement. Thus, the exceptions provided in the rule do not apply here. Graybeal Jackson was not accruing any expenses of litigation at that pointit was no longer representing Mr. Guditz and Octal. ¶ 46 The findings of fact support the conclusion of law that Mr. Haley violated RPC 1.8(e) when he agreed to finance the Taylor settlement.