Money for nothing?

January 25, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
There’s an interesting case playing out in Kentucky involving a dispute over attorney’s fees. Two lawyers, who didn’t work on the bad-faith claim against a doctor’s insurer, argue they should get a cut of the fees because they originally signed up the plaintiff when she sued her doctor for medical malpractice.

William McMurry and Mark Bryant each want 15 percent of the $1.7 million in attorney’s fees stemming from a suit against Debbie Daniels’ doctor’s insurer for refusing to engage in settlement discussions.

Daniels originally went to Bryant, asking him to represent her in her medical malpractice claim against her doctor; he referred her to McMurry. She signed a contract with him to pursue a claim for damages for medical negligence. But 6 months later, Daniels claimed McMurry told her it would be too time-consuming and expensive to handle her case. Hans Poppe, who had worked with McMurry’s firm but had left by this point, told Daniels he’d represent her.

He got a settlement for the malpractice claims and sent a cut to the two attorneys. Poppe didn’t tell McMurry or Bryant that he was going to pursue the bad-faith claims against the insurer. Poppe claimed he didn’t say anything because it would violate attorney-client privilege.

Now McMurry and Bryant have sued to get what they believe is their cut of the attorney’s fees won in the bad-faith suit. They argue the suit is tied to the original medical malpractice suit.

Kentucky ethics rules allow a referring lawyer to collect a finder’s fee as long as it’s a reasonable fee and the referring lawyer remains responsible for any legal malpractice in the case, according to a University of Kentucky law professor.

The issue then becomes whether the bad-faith case was pursued separately. The case went to trial Jan. 22 and is expected to end today.

Poppe told a Louisville newspaper that the two attorneys are like bank robbers trying to “parachute in” and claim a stake in the fee, and that he fears their demands “unfortunately adds to the negative stereotype of lawyers looking for something for nothing.”

What do you think about Poppe’s comments? Is he right that these attorneys are trying to get money for work they didn’t do, or are they rightfully entitled to the fees? Are McMurry and Bryant really reinforcing a negative stereotype of lawyers?
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
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT