ILNews

Appellate court rules on GAL fees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A guardian ad litem must differentiate between attorney and non-legal work when billing in a paternity case, and trial courts must carefully consider guidelines set out in probate-focused Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.5 when deciding how to compensate for fees and expenses.

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today in the case In Re: The Paternity of N.L.P., Robert Pendowski v. Lisa A. Sizemore/ Jill S. Swope, No. 45A03-0805-JV-226, vacating and remanding to Lake Superior Court a case dealing with an issue of first impression.

Specifically, the appeal looks at whether Swope, who for four years was a court-appointed guardian ad litem in a paternity case, reasonably calculated and billed for her legal and non-legal work - preparing and submitting reports, making home visits to both households, supervising parenting time, visiting the child's school, reviewing records, and also preparing for and attending court hearings by testifying and cross-examining other witnesses. Swope submitted a report in October 2007 that outlined fees and expenses totaling $34,800.

The trial court determined that the fees weren't reasonable, based on the following: Swope billed by the quarter hour and not tenth of an hour; long-distance phone calls and copying or faxing charges shouldn't have been included; the parents' income and ability to pay; and some of the services were duplicated by a custody evaluator. The trial court reduced the total fees to $20,000 and ordered each parent to pay half, and then denied Swope's motion earlier this year to correct error.

In writing for the appellate panel, Judge James Kirsch wrote, "The trial court found the fees to be unreasonable, but instead of engaging in an analysis of what a reasonable fee would have been, it arbitrarily chose $20,000 to be a reasonable amount of fees for this paternity action. We believe that a more complete careful analysis of the duties performed is required ...."

The appellate judges relied on Indiana Code § 31-14-18-2(a) about what trial courts can order a party in a paternity action to pay, but also looked to probate and estate administration statutes and rules because the reasonableness of the amount of GAL fees in paternity matters is one of first impression for Indiana. One of those guiding provisions is Rule 1.5, which includes factors such as time and labor required, fees customarily charged in that locality for similar legal services, and whether that fee is fixed or contingent.

Understandably, the court didn't apply those factors because of the first impression nature here, Judge Kirsch wrote. But at the same time, Swope's fees weren't reasonable, the court ruled.

"A GAL is oftentimes not an attorney, and a person acting as a GAL should not get an attorney's billing rate for performing GAL duties," he wrote. "We believe that the services performed as a GAL and the services performed as an attorney should be billed separately and at different rates. Any legal work done for the matter such as, drafting pleadings and participating in court hearings, may be billed as attorney fees. Any non-legal work done in the matter such as supervising parenting time, home visits, and preparing GAL reports, should be billed as GAL fees at a separate rate."

The case is remanded for the lower court to further analyze the fees based on this appellate opinion.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My husband financed a car through Wells Fargo In dec 2007 and in Jan 2012 they took him to court to garnish his wages through a company called autovest llc . Do u think the statue of limitations apply from the day last payment was received or from what should have been the completion of the loan

  2. Andrew, you are a whistleblower against an ideologically corrupt system that is also an old boys network ... Including old gals .... You are a huge threat to them. Thieves, liars, miscreants they understand, identify with, coddle. But whistleblowers must go to the stake. Burn well my friend, burn brightly, tyger.

  3. VSB dismissed the reciprocal discipline based on what Indiana did to me. Here we have an attorney actually breaking ethical rules, dishonest behavior, and only getting a reprimand. I advocated that this supreme court stop discriminating against me and others based on disability, and I am SUSPENDED 180 days. Time to take out the checkbook and stop the arrogant cheating to hurt me and retaliate against my good faith efforts to stop the discrimination of this Court. www.andrewstraw.org www.andrewstraw.net

  4. http://www.andrewstraw.org http://www.andrewstraw.net If another state believes by "Clear and convincing evidence" standard that Indiana's discipline was not valid and dismissed it, it is time for Curtis Hill to advise his clients to get out the checkbook. Discrimination time is over.

  5. Congrats Andrew, your street cred just shot up. As for me ... I am now an administrative law judge in Kansas, commissioned by the Governor to enforce due process rights against overreaching government agents. That after being banished for life from the Indiana bar for attempting to do the same as a mere whistleblowing bar applicant. The myth of one lowly peasant with the constitution does not play well in the Hoosier state. As for what our experiences have in common, I have good reason to believe that the same ADA Coordinator who took you out was working my file since 2007, when the former chief justice hired the same, likely to "take out the politically incorrect trash" like me. My own dealings with that powerful bureaucrat and some rather astounding actions .. actions that would make most state courts blush ... actions blessed in full by the Ind.S.Ct ... here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

ADVERTISEMENT