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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT