ILNews

Justices differ on reasonableness of GAL fees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


If two parties in a domestic relations dispute sign a written contract to retain the services of a guardian ad litem, then the trial court must enforce the terms of the agreement unless it is contrary to public policy, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Friday.

In In re the paternity of N.L.P; R.P., v. L.S. n/k/a L.B., No. 45S03-0904-JV-133, guardian ad litem Jill S. Swope challenged the trial court’s reduction of her GAL fees from $34,800 to $20,000 for work she did from 2004 to 2008 for parents R.P. and L.S. The parents executed a joint written agreement to hire Swope as the GAL to help resolve existing visitation and parenting issues. The written agreement outlined the hourly fee of $150 and that the parents would pay for various expenses such as long-distance phone calls.

The trial court found Swope’s original fees to be unreasonable because she charged for phone calls and other things that should have been included in the hourly rate; the parents may not have the ability to pay those fees; and some of her services duplicated services done by the court-appointed custody evaluator.

The Indiana Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s decision and remanded for the trial court to support its determination that the $20,000 fee was reasonable. The COA sua sponte ruled the fees were unreasonable because Swope acted as a GAL and attorney, and that she should have billed her work separately.

In this issue of first impression, the majority of justices found the focus on the reasonableness of the GAL fees to be misplaced. The clients didn’t contest Swope’s bill and entered into a contract to set the hourly rate and fees she could charge, wrote Justice Robert Rucker.

There is a strong presumption in the enforceability of private contracts unless the contracts somehow violate public policy grounds, but that isn’t the case here, the justice continued.

“We see no basis for the trial court to modify the terms of the parties’ agreements,” he wrote.

The trial court erred by not enforcing the term of the parties’ written agreements. The justices also noted they disagreed with the COA that someone acting as a GAL and attorney should bill separately for services and by not doing so, that renders the fees unreasonable.

Justice Theodore Boehm agreed with his colleagues that the parties’ hourly rate and reimbursement for incidental expenses are presumptively enforceable, but he agreed with the COA that the trial court may review the reasonableness of services rendered.

“Even if the hourly rate agreed is reasonable, a fee agreement is not a blank check for the attorney to fill in the amount of services rendered irrespective of the need for services,” wrote Justice Boehm.

The trial court is in the best position to determine if the services rendered were reasonable or useful, he continued, and whether duplication of services provided were reasonable.
 

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT