In Re Wolk

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting sufficiency of advice concerning outside counsel “designed to protect [respondent] rather than his client”
• DR 5-104(A) violated where respondent told client of interest in transaction but failed to disclose crucial, adverse financial information
• DR 5-104(A) applicable where client invested $10,000 on second mortgage for rental property owned in part by attorney
• no DR 5-101(A) violation found where client' knew of attorney’s interest in transaction
• noting pitfalls of transaction that independent counsel would have discovered
• affidavit of services submitted to court was a gross intentional exaggeration of services rendered, to enrich respondent at the expense of his client, a paralyzed eight-year old boy; coupled with taking financial advantage of another client, respondent was disbarred

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).