ILNews

Attorney reprimanded for charging unreasonable fees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has publicly reprimanded a Hamilton County attorney for violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.5(a) by making agreements for and charging unreasonable fees.

The justices released a per curiam opinion Feb. 11, In the Matter of Heather McClure O'Farrell, No. 29S00-0902-DI-76, in which the majority chose the discipline based on Heather McClure O'Farrell’s lack of prior disciplinary history and her cooperation with the Disciplinary Commission. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Robert Rucker joined in a dissent to the sanction. Because O'Farrell’s lawyer indicated that she is unrepentant, the dissenting justices believe a period of suspension without automatic reinstatement should have been instituted to protect clients.

McClure & O’Farrell, where O'Farrell practices, uses an “Hourly Fee Contract” or a “Flat Fee Contract” most of the time when it represents a party in a family law matter. Both contracts contain a provision for a nonrefundable “engagement fee.” The Disciplinary Commission alleged that O'Farrell improperly charged two clients these nonrefundable engagement fees and didn’t refund unearned fees after the representations ended.

The justices examined the various types of fee arrangements and the nonrefundability of fees. O'Farrell argued that the nonrefundable fees she charged the two clients were justified because by representing these clients, the law firm couldn’t represent opposing parties and it required time that the firm could have otherwise devoted to other representations. But this would be true anytime an attorney is engaged by a client, the opinion said.

They determined that the fees at issue are flat fees for work to be performed. O'Farrell failed to tell her clients that the flat fee could be refundable upon the failure to perform the agreed legal services; instead, she told her clients the fee was nonrefundable even if the client-attorney relationship ended before the completion of the attorney’s representation.

“The presence of this contract provision, even if unenforceable, could chill the right of a client to terminate Respondent's services, believing the Law Firm would be entitled to keep the entire flat fee regardless of how much or how little work was done and the client would have to pay another attorney to finish the task. We conclude that Respondent violated Rule 1.5(a) by including an improper nonrefundability provision in her flat fee agreements,” said the opinion.

They also found she violated the rule by charging and collecting flat fees that were nonrefundable, regardless of the circumstances.

“The Court is mindful of the legitimate concern of attorneys that they will go through the initial steps of opening a case and beginning work for a new client, only to have that client discharge them and demand a refund of the entire initial payment as unearned. The solution, however, is not allowing attorneys to charge flat or advance fees upfront that are wholly nonrefundable regardless of the amount of services rendered,” wrote the justices.

They decided based on the record they weren’t able to hold that some amount of the flat fee must be returned in all cases in which the attorney-client relationship ends before the work contracted for is completed. They also were unable to determine how much, if anything, O'Farrell should have refunded to the two clients, so they found the Disciplinary Commission didn’t meets its burden of proof that she violated Rule 1.16(d).

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Consistent
    If I recall, Tony Zirkle did not cooperate in the disciplinary process.
  • consistent or not?
    is this consistent with the punishment laid on Tony Zirkle or was he punished more severely? And why?

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. All the lawyers involved in this don't add up to a hill of beans; mostly yes-men punching their tickets for future advancement. REMF types. Window dressing. Who in this mess was a real hero? the whistleblower that let the public know about the torture, whom the US sent to Jail. John Kyriakou. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/ex-officer-for-cia-is-sentenced-in-leak-case.html?_r=0 Now, considering that Torture is Illegal, considering that during Vietnam a soldier was court-martialed and imprisoned for waterboarding, why has the whistleblower gone to jail but none of the torturers have been held to account? It's amazing that Uncle Sam's sunk lower than Vietnam. But that's where we're at. An even more unjust and pointless war conducted in an even more bogus manner. this from npr: "On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier." Today, the US itself has become lawless.

  2. "Brain Damage" alright.... The lunatic is on the grass/ The lunatic is on the grass/ Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs/ Got to keep the loonies on the path.... The lunatic is in the hall/ The lunatics are in my hall/ The paper holds their folded faces to the floor/ And every day the paper boy brings more/ And if the dam breaks open many years too soon/ And if there is no room upon the hill/ And if your head explodes with dark forbodings too/ I'll see you on the dark side of the moon!!!

  3. It is amazing how selectively courts can read cases and how two very similar factpatterns can result in quite different renderings. I cited this very same argument in Brown v. Bowman, lost. I guess it is panel, panel, panel when one is on appeal. Sad thing is, I had Sykes. Same argument, she went the opposite. Her Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence is now decidedly unintelligible.

  4. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  5. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

ADVERTISEMENT