- Court: Oregon Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Professional Responsibility
- Date Filed: 02-16-2023
- Case #: S069006
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Per Curiam, Flynn, C.J.; Duncan, J.; Nelson, J.; Garrett, J.; DeHoog, J.; Blamer, S.J.; & Walters, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Respondent challenged Disciplinary Board’s conclusion that he violated RPC 1.8(a) after he entered into an agreement in which his former client performed construction services in exchange for legal services. Respondent assigned error to the characterization of the agreement as a business transaction. Respondent argued that the agreement was a standard commercial transaction and even if it were a business transaction, it still did not fall under RPC 1.8(a) because it was a modified fee agreement. Under RPC 1.8(a), a lawyer who enters into a business transaction with a client must obtain the client’s informed consent by providing “in a writing signed by the client, [] the essential terms of the transaction…” The Court reasoned that the arrangement between Respondent and the client was a business transaction under RPC 1.8(a) because the terms of the agreement were not standard terms for the client’s construction business. Further, the Court reasoned that the written agreement between the client and the lawyer did not provide the key terms of the arrangement and did not meet the informed consent requirement under RPC 1.8(a). Accordingly, the Court upheld the sanction and Respondent was publicly reprimanded.