Under PR, business with a client is permissible only if:

Under PR, business with a client is permissible only if:

• A. There is an actual conflict in all cases
• B. The attorney has a reasonable belief of diligence, not prohibited, not the same litigation, and Informed Written Consent exists
• C. The client approves after the fact
• D. It is never allowed

Answer: (B)

In this area, the rule is that a lawyer may conduct a business transaction with a client only if safeguards are in place to protect the client’s interests. The essential safeguards are that the terms must be fair and reasonable to the client and fully disclosed in writing in a way the client can understand. The client must be advised in writing to seek independent counsel and must give informed written consent to the essential terms and the lawyer’s involvement. Those conditions help ensure that the client isn’t exploited, understands what they’re agreeing to, and has an opportunity to get independent advice before consenting. The transaction must also not be prohibited by other rules and should not be tied to the same matter in a way that creates a conflict of interest. When all of these elements are present, the transaction is permissible. If a choice suggests consent after the fact, or declares that such dealings are never allowed, or that an actual conflict exists in every case, it misses the requirement for upfront disclosure, independent counsel, and informed consent, which is why it isn’t correct.

In this area, the rule is that a lawyer may conduct a business transaction with a client only if safeguards are in place to protect the client’s interests. The essential safeguards are that the terms must be fair and reasonable to the client and fully disclosed in writing in a way the client can understand. The client must be advised in writing to seek independent counsel and must give informed written consent to the essential terms and the lawyer’s involvement. Those conditions help ensure that the client isn’t exploited, understands what they’re agreeing to, and has an opportunity to get independent advice before consenting. The transaction must also not be prohibited by other rules and should not be tied to the same matter in a way that creates a conflict of interest. When all of these elements are present, the transaction is permissible.

If a choice suggests consent after the fact, or declares that such dealings are never allowed, or that an actual conflict exists in every case, it misses the requirement for upfront disclosure, independent counsel, and informed consent, which is why it isn’t correct.