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. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  2. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  3. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  4. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

  5. Dear Fan, let me help you correct the title to your post. "ACLU is [Left] most of the time" will render it accurate. Just google it if you doubt that I am, err, "right" about this: "By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin had carved out a well-established reputation as America’s foremost civil libertarian. He was, at the same time, one of the nation’s leading figures in left-of-center circles. Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes. Baldwin’s expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush." http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/roger-baldwin-2/ "[George Soros underwrites the ACLU' which It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 "The creation of non-profit law firms ushered in an era of progressive public interest firms modeled after already established like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") to advance progressive causes from the environmental protection to consumer advocacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_lawyering

ADVERTISEMENT