ILNews

Justices differ on reasonableness of GAL fees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


If two parties in a domestic relations dispute sign a written contract to retain the services of a guardian ad litem, then the trial court must enforce the terms of the agreement unless it is contrary to public policy, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Friday.

In In re the paternity of N.L.P; R.P., v. L.S. n/k/a L.B., No. 45S03-0904-JV-133, guardian ad litem Jill S. Swope challenged the trial court’s reduction of her GAL fees from $34,800 to $20,000 for work she did from 2004 to 2008 for parents R.P. and L.S. The parents executed a joint written agreement to hire Swope as the GAL to help resolve existing visitation and parenting issues. The written agreement outlined the hourly fee of $150 and that the parents would pay for various expenses such as long-distance phone calls.

The trial court found Swope’s original fees to be unreasonable because she charged for phone calls and other things that should have been included in the hourly rate; the parents may not have the ability to pay those fees; and some of her services duplicated services done by the court-appointed custody evaluator.

The Indiana Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s decision and remanded for the trial court to support its determination that the $20,000 fee was reasonable. The COA sua sponte ruled the fees were unreasonable because Swope acted as a GAL and attorney, and that she should have billed her work separately.

In this issue of first impression, the majority of justices found the focus on the reasonableness of the GAL fees to be misplaced. The clients didn’t contest Swope’s bill and entered into a contract to set the hourly rate and fees she could charge, wrote Justice Robert Rucker.

There is a strong presumption in the enforceability of private contracts unless the contracts somehow violate public policy grounds, but that isn’t the case here, the justice continued.

“We see no basis for the trial court to modify the terms of the parties’ agreements,” he wrote.

The trial court erred by not enforcing the term of the parties’ written agreements. The justices also noted they disagreed with the COA that someone acting as a GAL and attorney should bill separately for services and by not doing so, that renders the fees unreasonable.

Justice Theodore Boehm agreed with his colleagues that the parties’ hourly rate and reimbursement for incidental expenses are presumptively enforceable, but he agreed with the COA that the trial court may review the reasonableness of services rendered.

“Even if the hourly rate agreed is reasonable, a fee agreement is not a blank check for the attorney to fill in the amount of services rendered irrespective of the need for services,” wrote Justice Boehm.

The trial court is in the best position to determine if the services rendered were reasonable or useful, he continued, and whether duplication of services provided were reasonable.
 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT