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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT