Legal Loopholes and the Question of Ethics
Christopher Yatooma countered that the partnership contract is void, arguing it violated professional conduct rules barring attorneys from entering business deals with clients without full disclosure, fairness, and independent legal advice.
He claimed Gregory’s dual role as both business partner and attorney created a conflict of interest that should nullify the agreement.
But Judge Valentine wasn’t convinced. In her order, she wrote that “there remains a genuine dispute” over whether Gregory was, in fact, acting as his brother’s lawyer regarding the formation or terms of their partnership.
Gregory has denied having any attorney-client relationship with Christopher between 2015 and 2021, and the invoices presented during that period failed to clarify whether the services billed were for the partnership or for Christopher personally.
Court Sees Gray Area in Public Policy Defense
Judge Valentine also noted that even if a legal relationship existed, Christopher failed to prove that the transaction was unfair or unreasonable — key factors in voiding a deal on public policy grounds.
“Without clear evidence that the agreement disadvantaged Christopher or was structured improperly, the contract cannot be dismissed at this stage,” the judge wrote.
