ILNews

Justices suspend attorney for 18 months

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Three Indiana justices decided that an attorney deserved an 18-month suspension for violating four rules of Professional Conduct, including charging an unreasonable fee. Justice Steven David didn’t participate in the case and Justice Robert Rucker believed the attorney only violated three of the rules and deserved a shorter suspension.

In In the Matter of: Lawrence T. Newman, No. 49S00-0907-DI-331, Lawrence Newman was retained by M.L. to help represent her in disputes over the operation of a closely held corporation left by her father in his estate. The agreement between M.L. and Newman said Newman would be paid $195 an hour, payable upon receipt of M.L.’s distribution from the estate, plus 25 percent of M.L.’s distribution.

Just a few weeks later, M.L. sent a letter asking Newman to stop all work, and she later terminated his employment and asked for a statement of the work he had done. Newman filed a notice of intent to hold an attorney’s lien on M.L.’s distrubtion from the estate for his hourly fee plus 25 percent of the distribution of the estate. It took more than three years for M.L. to receive her file, which she got after she was ordered to pay Newman nearly $8,500 for the work he had done on her case.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justices Brent Dickson and Frank Sullivan agreed with the Disciplinary Commission that Newman violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.4(a)(4), 1.5(a), 1.16(a)(3), and 1.16(d) for failing to comply with M.L.’s reasonable requests for an accounting of the hours he worked prior to being discharged, by charging an unreasonable fee, by failing to withdraw from representation promptly after being discharged, and by failing to return M.L.’s file after its retention was no longer necessary to secure payment of his fee.

“While we do not adopt the Commission's assertion that a contingent fee agreement is per se unethical whenever there is no risk of total non-recovery, we conclude that the evidence supports a conclusion that the contingent fee agreement under the circumstances of this particular case was unreasonable,” the per curiam opinion states.

Justice Rucker dissented on this matter, finding there to be insufficient evidence to support a violation of Rule 1.5(a) – charging or collecting an unreasonable fee – and that the 18-month suspension imposed is based in part on a violation not charged by the commission. He pointed out that the hearing officer didn’t make findings or conclusions that Newman may have violated the rule by charging or collecting an unreasonable fee, and the commission never filed charges against him alleging a violation of this provision of the rule. The hearing officer claimed Newman violated this rule by “negotiating and entering into a contingency fee agreement when [M.L.] faced no risk of non-recovery” in the estate matter.  

“To conclude that ‘Respondent violated Rule 1.5(a) by charging an unreasonable fee’ decides a question outside the scope of our review and violates the Respondent’s right to fundamental due process,” he wrote. Rucker would impose a 90-day suspension for the remaining three violations.

Newman's suspension begins Jan. 31.

 

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT