722 , FEDERAL ■REPOBTBB. �It is contrary to the policy of the law, and certainly contrary to the principles of equity, to permit an attorney at law to oecupy at the same time and in the same transaction the antagonistic and wholly incompatible position of adviser of his client concerning a pending litigation, threatening the client's title to property, and that of purchaser of such property from the client. If an attorney can deal with his client concerning such property at all, he must, be- fore doing so, — for the time, at least, — divest himself of the character of attorney, so that his former client may deal with him as a etranger. This is not the case -when the attorney negotiates with the client as the purchaser of such property, and at the same time ad- vises him as counsel concerning the title toit, or concerning its value, as affected by pending litigation. . �3. To sustain a sale from client to attorney, the burden is upon the latter, and he must show that he bas done as much to protect the client's interest as he would have done in the case of his client's deal- ing with a stranger. The court will watch such a transaction with jealousy, and throw on the attorney the burden of proving that the bargain is, generally speaking, as good as any that could have been obtained by due diligence from any. other purchasen An attorney cannot in any case sustain a purchase from his client without show- ing that he communicated to such client everythingnecessaryforhim to form a correct judgment as to the real value of the subject of the purchase, and as to the propriety of selling; for the priee . offered ; and neglect of the attorney to inform himself of the state of the facts will not enable him to sustain a purchase from his blient for an inad- equate consideration. The attoiliey must show that all the consider- ations which should have operated to prevent -the sale by the client were presented by him with the eamestness of a man who was anx- ious only for the client's good. It must be made to appear. that the client is no worse off than he would have been had he consulte d an adviser who had no ' ititerest and no selfish end in view. It must appear also that the attorney took such measures to inform himself as to the value of the property offered for sale by the client as are ordinarily taken by persons dealing in such property under like cir- cumstances, and that, being himself thereby infortned, he communi- cated all his information upon the subject to his client. Authorities by which these general rules are established will be found cited in Weeks, Attys. at Law, under the head of "Dealingsbetween Attorney and Client," 450-469, and in 2 White & Tudor, Leadt Cas. in Eq. ��� �
