## Facts

- Gregory and Barbara Pietz consulted attorney Robert Alexander Petrie about adopting an infant, paid a consultation fee, and agreed Petrie would represent them if they located a baby for adoption.
- The Pietzes later learned of an expectant mother and arranged for Petrie to meet her and her sister, specifying that the referral came from the Pietzes.
- Petrie met the mother and her sister and afterward wrote the Pietzes stating he had interviewed the mother and asking whether the Pietzes remained interested.
- The Pietzes replied in writing that they were interested, were state-certified to adopt, and were hopeful about the situation.
- Petrie construed the Pietzes’ response as equivocal and proceeded on the view that the natural mother was his sole client.
- Petrie received an inquiry from another couple (the Buckmasters) seeking to adopt and, after checking with the mother’s sister about any obligation to the Pietzes, recommended that the mother place the child with the Buckmasters.
- The child was placed with the Buckmasters; Petrie informed the Pietzes only after they called to ask about the placement.
- The Pietzes filed a bar complaint alleging conflict of interest and failure to perform the agreed legal services.
- A Local Administrative Committee found violations and recommended censure; the Disciplinary Commission affirmed and recommended a 30-day suspension; Petrie objected, and the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the matter independently.

## Issues

1. Whether Petrie violated conflict-of-interest rules by representing multiple parties with competing interests in an independent adoption without adequate disclosure and consent.
2. Whether Petrie failed to carry out a contract of employment with the Pietzes to represent them in the adoption once they located a child.
3. What sanction was appropriate for the violations proved by clear and convincing evidence.

## Decision

- The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Petrie had an attorney–client relationship with the Pietzes for the adoption they brought to him.
- The court held Petrie violated DR 5-105(A) and (B) by undertaking representation involving competing interests in the same adoption matter without proper disclosure and consent.
- The court held Petrie violated DR 7-101(A)(2) by failing to carry out his employment agreement with the Pietzes after they located a child.
- The court imposed a 30-day suspension from the practice of law.

## Legal Principles

- In attorney discipline, the court independently determines the facts and law, giving serious consideration to bar committee and commission findings and recommendations.
- Misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence (i.e., highly probable).
- A lawyer must refuse or discontinue employment when the lawyer’s independent professional judgment for a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by responsibilities to another client (DR 5-105(A), (B)).
- A lawyer may not fail to carry out an employment agreement for professional services with a client (DR 7-101(A)(2)).
- In independent adoptions, representing the natural parent while also representing, or effectively favoring, competing adoptive parents in the same placement presents a conflict requiring full disclosure and informed consent; divided loyalty violates the duty owed to the client.

## Conclusion

The court disciplined Petrie for divided loyalty in an independent adoption and for not performing the engagement he undertook with prospective adoptive parents, ordering a 30-day suspension to reflect the seriousness of conflicts and nonperformance in adoption matters.


In re Petrie, 742 P.2d 796 (Ariz. 1987)