iii) as a result, the Claimant’s claims are barred under the doctrine of unclean hands and the agreement is contrary to Rule 1.8(a) of the Code and unenforceable; 66. Judge van Gestel’s report dealt with 2 points arising out of this. He said that “clean hands” is an equitable doctrine that usually comes into play when equitable relief is sought. That is not the situation which arises on the pleadings in this case. He then turns to the Rule 1.8 claim – in fact Rule 1.18 since the former is a pleading error. The court firstly determines whether there is a client/attorney relationship which: “may be shown by an express contract, … or implied when (1) a person seeks advice or assistance from an attorney, (2) the advice or assistance sought pertains to matters within the attorney’s professional competence, and (3) the attorney expressly or impliedly agrees to give or actually gives advice or assistance.” 67. He was then asked whether a violation of Code 1.18 would render the contract void or unenforceable. His categorical answer was “No”, on the basis that this would be decided by the Board of Bar Overseers and is not determined or enforceable by the court. He said that it may be evidence of negligence. He was then asked by the Defendants if, “Absent the Code” if the contract would be rendered void or unenforceable under the Law of Massachusetts if the terms were unfair or unreasonable, were not fully disclosed to the client in a manner that could be understood by the client or a failure to advise the client to seek independent advice. Judge van Gestel’s answer was based on the premise that an attorney/client relationship was found. His response was that an attorney’s contract with his client may be rendered void or unenforceable if the terms were found to be unreasonable or the terms were not fully disclosed to the client in a manner that could be fully understood or the client not advised to obtain independent advice. No particulars were given of the circumstances in which Massachusetts law would render an agreement void or unenforceable. 68. The problem for the Defendants is they do not plead that the contract is void or unenforceable on general legal grounds, but rely either on the doctrine of unclean hands (which does not apply in this case for reasons given by Judge van Gestel and set out above) or on the alleged breach of the Code. There is no other case pleaded. It is not therefore open to the Defendants to run this point. In any event, it would have been extremely unfair on the Claimant to allow an amendment to plead the new case. Judge van Gestel’s response can be compared to a response by an English lawyer to the question: “Can a party to a contract set aside a contract on the grounds of undue influence where the other party is his solicitor?”. The answer “maybe” (which is in effect what Judge van Gestel is saying) goes nowhere near providing evidence of the circumstances in which such a claim might be made. The Claimant has had no notice of the claim and, in the light of Judge van Gestel’s previous categorical response, would not have expected to meet such a claim at trial. Therefore, the Code 1.18 (in whatever form) does not arise in this case. 69. In any event, the evidence is overwhelming that there was no client/attorney relationship because the 3-stage test set out by Judge van Gestel is not satisfied: i) In evidence the First Defendant, who played the lead role on the Defendants’ side in the negotiations, accepted that he had not sought any legal advice from the Claimant;