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?

Post a comment to this story

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
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit