had performed legal services for the Lindseys and had given them no reason to believe their attorney-client relationship had terminated, Respondent was bound by Colo. RPC 1.8(a). 26 . The 2007 and 2008 versions of Colo. RPC 1.8(a) are similar but not identical. The 2008 version of Colo. RPC 1.8(a)(3) explicitly provides that the client must give written informed consent to the lawyer's role in the transaction, while the 2007 version of that subsection simply states that the client must consent in writing to a business transaction with the client's lawyer. In addition, the comments to the 2007 rule did not direct lawyers to discuss the material risks of loans with clients. 27 . Colo. RPC 1.8(a) (2008) emt. 1. 28 . See In re Conduct of Montgomery, 292 Or. 796, 643 P.2d 338, 341 (1982) (<HOLDING>). 29 . See In re Fisher, 202 P.3d 1186, 1203
recognizing that a lawyer hired by a third person to represent a client should exercise judgment on behalf of the client independent from the interests of the third person holding that each individual member of an unincorporated association is a client of the associations lawyer holding trial court erred when it sanctioned client where the evidence showed that the attorney filed frivolous pleadings on behalf of the client but the client did nothing more than rely on her attorneys advice holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client holding that even where a client was more sophisticated in business matters than the lawyer himself the lawyer should have assumed the client was relying on the lawyer for the legal aspects of the loan from the client to the lawyer to the same extent that the client would rely on the lawyer for advice were the client making the loan to a third person