COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY v. FLADSETH, Dist. Court, ND California 2013 – Google Scholar.
This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by an insurance company against a lawyer. The underlying cases were two lawsuits against the lawyer. He was accused of charging excessive fees in two medical malpractice lawsuits. He sought coverage under his legal malpractice insurance policy and the insurer denied coverage.
The insurance policy excluded from coverage any fee disputes with clients.
The ARDC has filed a complaint against two lawyers who handled a case on a contingency basis. The first agreement from 2005 gave them a legal fee of 33 and 1/3 of the gross amount recovered. After they had obtained a recovery for the client, they lawyers prepared a new agreement in 2008 which increased the fee to 40% of the total amount. The ARDC alleged that the increased fee constituted overreaching and a breach of fiduciary duty.
Generally, it is taboo to renegotiate a contingency fee agreement after a recovery has been made. The client is vulnerable and the lawyer, who may be holding funds in a trust account, is in a stronger position.
Allison v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Tex: Court of Appeals, 14th Dist. 2012 – Google Scholar.
The Texas Court of Appeals has affirmed a suspension for a lawyer who missed deadlines in an immigration matter and whose client was deported as a result. This is a case where a lawyer’s neglect of a matter results in professional discipline. The court rejected the lawyer’s argument that the client was difficult to reach.
The rule is quoted below:
The ARDC Hearing Board has recommended a six month suspension for a lawyer who falsely notarized a quit claim deed and then, when he received an inquiry from the ARDC, falsely informed the ARDC that the signatures of his clients were genuine. The panel explains:
“
IN RE GLEASON, Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 2012 – Google Scholar.
A bankruptcy lawyer was unhappy with a ruling. What he did next netted him a 60 day suspension from practicing before the bankruptcy court.
The lawyer wrote a letter to the judge and included a bottle of wine with the letter. The result was a legal ethics mess and a suspension.
This is a disciplinary case against Herbert Arthur Bates, an attorney in Illinois. Bates was retained by a convicted criminal to handle his appeal. Bates was paid $10,000. Unfortunately, he missed numerous deadlines and the appeal was dismissed. He also failed to return the transcripts to the inmate so the inmate could do the appeal by himself. The ARDC Hearing Board recommended a suspension of eighteen months. Bates ultimately refunded the money he was paid to handle the appeal.
The Panel explains:
BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE.
One portion of the allegations against this lawyer concern an unreasonable fee. The lawyer represented an 84 year old woman who lived in a retirement community. The lawyer prepared routine estate planning documents and charged her $2500, which was paid. The next several paragraphs of the complaint allege as follows:
“6. Between November 21, 2009 and January 23, 2010, Respondent did no additional work for Mrs. Meyer. In January, 2010, Respondent presented Mrs. Meyer with a statement which described the services rendered as: “Will Review/Possible Changes, Power of Attorney; General, Power of Attorney; Health Care, Review of Stock Portfolio Fidelity Investments, Review of Other Financial documents, Bank Accounts, Etc., Travel to Peace Village, 11-10-2009 and 11-17-2009,” the exact services set forth in the November 18, 2009 statement. Respondent merely added the date of January 23, 2010 and inserted the words “Retainer Fee for 2010.” The amount of the statement was $25,000.
BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD OF THE.
The ARDC has filed a complaint against a lawyer alleging that he billed false time to a matter while he was working for a law firm. Obviously, this is a complaint and has not been proven. The lawyer has the right to counsel and a hearing. It can be difficult to prove false time cases because you must prove that the lawyer really did no work, even if he claimed he did. It involves a question of intent, often hard to prove. The evidence introduced at the hearing must be compelling to sustain a finding of dishonesty.
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
Thomas E. Spahn has published an article titled “A Practical Roadmap To The New Illinois Ethics Rules.” The article compares the 2010 Illinois ethics rules with the ABA model rules and the previous 1990 version of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. The article can be found at 35 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 27.
It is an understatement to describe this article as thorough and thoughtful. Spahn also discusses the lengthy comments appended to the Illinois Rules. The discussion is focused on the needs of the practitioner, not the academic. As such it is worth reading. The article is about 90 pages long and it requires close study.
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
This is an opinion of the ARDC review board, the final step before a disciplinary matter goes before the Illinois Supreme Court. The ARDC charged the lawyer with failing to disclose her financial interest in six real estate closings because she was the title agent. Moreover, in four transactions the lawyer represented both buyer and seller.
Lawyers often act as title agents in real estate transactions. Acting as a title agent is very common. This opinion tells lawyers that they must disclose that they are acting as a title agent. Failure to disclose this conflict of interest (even though this occurs every day in Illinois) is misconduct.
Chicago Legal Malpractice Lawyer Blog