In re Neville
Supreme Court of the State of Arizona
708 P.2d 1297 (1985)
Bly, an experienced real estate broker and investor, had long relied on attorney Neville (Neville) for counsel on his real estate deals. Bly proposed a property-swap transaction in which Neville, who held an option interest in the relevant properties, would benefit personally, and Neville drafted the contract memorializing terms that were disadvantageous to Bly, without counteroffer. Disciplinary proceedings arose from the transaction; Neville argued in his defense that he told Bly he wasn't acting as Bly's counsel for that particular deal.
Whether an attorney, when entering into a transaction with a former client, must provide (1) notice of any conflicts of interest arising from the transaction, (2) an explanation of the client's interest in seeking independent representation, and (3) a full disclosure of risks to the client and benefits to the attorney.