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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT