In Re Wenz

¶29 I concur in the decision of this Court that Respondent, Warren C. Wenz, violated Rule 1.10 of the M.R.P.C., when he failed to make appropriate inquiries concerning dual representation of two clients who were directly adverse to each other. As stated by the Court, Wenz was not reasonable in his belief that the firm’s representation of Klemens and Schuff would not adversely affect the relationship with Klemens.

¶30 I respectfully dissent from the decision that a public censure, as recommended by the Commission on Practice, is the appropriate sanction.

*211¶31 Rule 9, Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary…