Raoul Ehr, 41, Wauwatosa, consented to a public reprimand by the Board of Attorneys Professional Responsibility on October 18, 1995.

In 1985, Ehr began to represent an 89 year old childless widow. Ehr had a personal, as well as professional, relationship with the client. He did personal errands for her, visited her at her apartment, and charged her only for tax preparation and will drafting. When he began representing the widow, a religious institution was named as the residuary beneficiary in her will. From 1985 to 1990, four wills were prepared for the widow, and there was no change in the residuary beneficiary until the fourth will, which named Ehr as the residuary beneficiary. Further, this will forgave Ehr's indebtedness to the widow. This will was prepared by an attorney in an office-sharing arrangement with Ehr and was witnessed by Ehr's secretary. The widow was 94 years old when the last will was signed, was wheel-chair bound, and was unable to read standard print, as was used in the will. Her hand had to be guided to sign the will, due to arthritis and palsy. No one else was present for the signing, the signing was not videotaped, and no contemporaneous notes were taken. The drafting attorney did not determine the extent of the widow's assets or discuss the changes with the widow in any substantial manner. Ehr had not been named in any previous will, except for the third, in which he was only bequeathed a diamond ring. Ehr was not related to the widow and had received no other presents from her in her lifetime.

When the widow died, nine months after the will was signed, the residuary estate was valued at $212,000, and Ehr's debt to the widow totaled approximately $26,000. The religious institution contested the will, and the probate court set the will aside, having found that Ehr had not overcome a presumption of undue influence. The Board found that Ehr had, through the acts of another, prepared an instrument giving himself a testamentary gift where: he was not related to the client; he was not the natural object of the bounty of the client; there were reasonable grounds to anticipate a will contest, claim of undue influence or for the public to lose confidence in the integrity of the bar; and the amount of the bequest was not reasonable and natural under the circumstances, all in violation of SCR 20:1.8(c) and 20:8.4(a).

During the widow's lifetime, Ehr received loans from his client in the amounts of $30,000, $10,750, and $17,500. The last two loans were unsecured, and, although the first was secured by a mortgage on real estate, Ehr never recorded the mortgage. The terms of the second loan did not provide for payment of interest, a due date or payment plan. The third loan was not scheduled to be paid off until the widow was 104 years old. Ehr obtained the loans without having his client seek independent counsel and without having obtained her consent in writing to a possible conflict. The Board found that Ehr had entered into a business transaction with a client where the terms were not fair and reasonable to the client, the client was not given reasonable opportunity to consult with independent counsel, and the client did not consent to a possible conflict in interest in writing, in violation of SCR 20:1.8(a). Ehr had no prior history of discipline.