This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D represented Miles in a case before the Workers' Compensation Court. D loaned Miles $1,200. The check recited that the money was for travel expenses. D admitted that the true purpose of the loan was for living expenses because Miles' home had been destroyed by fire. Without the loan, Miles indicated he would have to move to Indiana and would be unable to continue his medical treatment or make court appearances. Miles was receiving temporary total disability benefits of $426.00 a week from which D's attorney fee was subtracted. Miles received $384.00 a week before loan payments. The loan was interest-free and without penalty or cost other than the amount of the principle. Miles was to repay the loan at $100.00 a week from his temporary total disability benefits. Miles made paid only $200.00 on the loan. D agreed to forego further repayment until final settlement of the Workers' Compensation case. Miles became involved in other legal matters and sought a new attorney. D terminated the attorney-client relationship and eventually P learned of D's loan. D testified that he had consulted lawyers whose opinions are well respected in legal ethics, and it was their belief that D's conduct would not violate rule 1.8(e). D claims rule 1.8(e) unconstitutionally treats clients who need humanitarian loans differently than clients who receive advances of litigation expenses and court costs. D found P guilty and the State Supreme Court reviewed the matter de novo.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.