David R. Calvert, Petitioner v. Diane L. Mayberry A/k/a Diane Marie Laba-Mayberry and Desiree L. Mayberry, Respondents.

Summary

The court held that an attorney-client contract formed without complying with Rule 1.8(a) is presumptively void as against public policy, subject to rebuttal by proof that the transaction was fair, unambiguous, and free from undue influence or overreaching. Because Calvert admitted his noncompliance, the court declined to decide whether issue preclusion applied, and it concluded that he could not rebut the presumption on the undisputed record. The court upheld trial-level attorney fees but denied appellate fees because the appeals presented legitimate legal questions. Chief Justice Coats, joined by Justice Samour, dissented, arguing that professional-conduct rules should not create a public-policy defense to contract formation or affect civil liability.