In re Pérez Marrero, 185 P.R. 449

On May 6, 2010, the Procuradora General filed a professional conduct charge against Ledo Osvaldo Pérez Marrero under Canon 21 for representing Oros Verdes, Inc. and Dr. Camuñas Córdova in a Doral Financial damages action, alleging adverse interests.
A special commissioner, Crisanta González Seda, was appointed to receive and evaluate evidence and prepare a factual report with findings and recommendations.
Pérez Marrero contested the Commissioner's report, and the court agreed with the Special Commissioner that the attorney violated the ethical rule.
Pérez Marrero, as secretary and vice-president of Oros Verdes, Inc., participated in negotiations to have the corporation assume the existing mortgage, with Doral reportedly agreeing to transfer the debt and release the original debtors.
Despite an agreement that the mortgage would be transferred or refinanced within 90 days, Doral did not complete the transfer; the attorney pursued litigation against Doral, representing both the corporation and the plaintiff.
Ultimately the court imposed discipline: immediate suspension of Pérez Marrero from the practice of law and notary services for six months, with duties to notify clients, return files, and report compliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Canon 21 was violated by dual representation	Pérez Marrero had conflicting interests representing both parties	Alleged conflict mitigated by client authorization and conduct	Yes, Canon 21 violated
What sanction is appropriate for the ethical violation	Disciplinary measures should reflect harm and lack of remorse	Sanction should be limited given lack of prior sanctions and remedial steps	Six-month suspension appropriate
Whether appearance of impropriety and confidentiality concerns were breached	Continued representation of adverse interests violated fiduciary duties	No evidence of deliberate concealment or confidentiality breach beyond the conflict	Yes, they were breached

In re Toro Cubergé, 140 D.P.R. 523 (1996) (prohibits representing conflicting interests to preserve loyalty)
In re Pizarro Coin, 151 D.P.R. 94 (2000) (loyalty and independence of professional judgment required)
Liquilux Gas Corp. v. Berrios, Zaragoza, 138 D.P.R. 850 (1995) (prohibits simultaneous or successive adverse representations)
In re Báez Genoval, 175 D.P.R. 28 (2008) (importance of relationship and substantial relation for conflicts of interest)
In re Monge García, 173 D.P.R. 379 (2008) (avoidance of appearances of impropriety and conflicts of interest)
In re Quiñones Ayala, 165 D.P.R. 138 (2005) (factors for discipline and remedial considerations)