holding that while respondent attorney violated former *69 Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 5-104 (1972) in entering a business transaction with a client without necessary safeguards, professional discipline was not warranted due to the “relatively undefined” nature of the attorney-client relationship at issue, the attorney’s good faith, and the lack of harm to the client
How later courts described this case
- holding that while respondent attorney violated former *69 Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 5-104 (1972) in entering a business transaction with a client without necessary safeguards, professional discipline was not warranted due to the “relatively undefined” nature of the attorney-client relationship at issue, the attorney’s good faith, and the lack of harm to the client
- holding that while respondent attorney violated former Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 5-l 04 ( 1972) in entering a business transaction with a client without necessary safeguards, professional discipline was not warranted due to the "relatively undefined" nature of the attorney-client relationship at issue, the attorney's good faith, and the lack of harm to the client
- holding that while respondent attorney violated former Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 5-104 (1972
- imposing no sanction where attorney’s conduct was “borderline,” but explaining that the court would not be so lenient in the future
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dimmick, J.
(dissenting) — I concur in the analysis of the dissent by Dore, J. However, I see no compelling reason to deviate from the recommendation of the Disciplinary Board.
Stafford and Pearson, JJ., concur with Dimmick, J.