Justices: Attorneys must consult with clients

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court has suspended for three months a longtime attorney who prepared wills for clients without ever personally consulting with them.

Issuing an order In the Matter of Paul J. Watts, No. 60S00-0809-DI-510, the justices ruled 4-1 that Spencer-based attorney Paul J. Watts, who's been practicing since 1974, should be suspended for 120 days starting Jan. 29, 2010. The order was posted online today and is dated Dec. 22.

The case stems from a previous disciplinary action involving Bloomington attorney David J. Colman, whom the justices suspended in May 2008 for three years after finding he'd engaged in attorney misconduct on multiple estate planning tasks through the years. Three justices opted for the suspension, while Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Brent Dickson wanted disbarment because this was his fourth disciplinary proceeding since being admitted in 1970. That decision came with the order, Matter of Colman, 885 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind. 2008).

In Watts' case, Colman had consulted with G.A. - a 95-year-old man who lived alone and was hospitalized with a broken hip - in 2004 about his need for a will, and Colman contacted Watts to prepare the will. G.A. was concerned about the state ending up with his assets upon his death, and he agreed to name Colman as his sole primary beneficiary with Colman's son as a contingent beneficiary.

Colman met and discussed the issues with G.A. privately and Watts never met with G.A. or discussed the will with him, though one of Watts' paralegals did contact the man's physician and caseworker and communicated with Colman. The paralegal also went over the final will with G.A.

A week after the will's execution, Colman filed a petition that he be named as guardian over G.A.'s estate because of what he said was the man's mental incapacitation. He obtained that guardianship role, though the elderly man eventually obtained new counsel and challenged the guardianship and ultimately drafted a new will that left $650,000 to Indiana University's Hilltop Garden and Nature Center, where G.A. had worked as a yardman.

In this disciplinary case, Watts maintained throughout the proceedings that he'd done nothing wrong in failing to communicate with G.A. about the will, instead trusting Colman to communicate on his behalf and delegating to a paralegal any duty to explore G.A.'s competence or wishes about the will. Watts said until this disciplinary issue arose, it was his standard practice to draft wills for elderly, bedfast clients without consulting them and relying instead on information provided by family members in order to minimize legal fees for the clients.

The Disciplinary Commission filed the action against Watts in September 2008, and former Vigo Superior Judge Barbara Brugnaux was named as the hearing officer in this case. Earlier this year, she determined that Watts committed misconduct and recommended that he be suspended. The justices agreed, finding that he violated three Indiana Professional Conduct Rules: 1.4(b) on failure to explain matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions; 1.7 that involves attorneys representing clients when the representation would be materially limited by attorney's responsibilities to a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer; and 8.4(a) that prohibits knowingly assisting another to violate the lawyer disciplinary rules, particularly the one prohibiting the preparation of an instrument for a non-relative giving the lawyer or person related to the lawyer a substantial gift.

"Respondent's unwavering argument that he can ethically represent a client without communicating with the client displays a troubling lack of insight into his duty of undivided loyalty to the client," the court wrote. "If fees are a concern, the lawyer's options are to reduce the fees or decline the employment, not conduct it in breach of duty. Irreparable harm may well result if the client dies with a will that does not reflect his or her wishes. The need for independent advice is particularly acute if the client is vulnerable due to age or disability. A desire to minimize a client's legal fees cannot take precedence over the obligation to provide the independent legal counsel for which the fees are paid."

Justices pointed out that despite Watts' "lack of insight" into his misconduct, he no longer uses the no-contact practice with clients that put this case into motion. For that reason, a majority decided that the 120-day suspension is sufficient to give Watts "the opportunity to reflect on his misconduct, reassess his duties to his clients, and take any further corrective action" before being automatically reinstated to practice law.

Justice Frank Sullivan dissented on the discipline, believing it to be insufficient.

Responding to news about the court's disciplinary decision, Watts told Indiana Lawyer today that he regretted that this had happened but wanted to avoid saying much about the ruling itself. He said this is the first disciplinary action against him in 36 years of practicing.

"If there's a lesson to be learned here for the benefit of the bar, it's that you must talk directly to the person for whom you're drafting the will... you can't take it from anyone else," he said. "I thought I'd covered it. Obviously, I was wrong. I'm sorry that I was wrong and I certainly didn't mean to discredit the profession. What else do you say?"

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?