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

Summary

The court declined to decide whether issue preclusion applied because Calvert judicially admitted that he failed to comply with Rule 1.8(a). It held that a contract formed in violation of that rule is presumptively void as against public policy, subject to rebuttal by proof that the agreement was fair, unambiguous, and free from undue influence or overreaching; Calvert could not make that showing. The court upheld trial-level attorney fees but rejected appellate fees because the appeals presented legitimate legal questions. Chief Justice Coats, dissenting, would reject using the professional-conduct rules as a basis for invalidating contracts and would preclude disciplinary proceedings from affecting civil or criminal liability.