ILNews

Justices suspend attorney for collecting 'exploitive fee'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has suspended an Indianapolis attorney after finding he engaged in attorney misconduct by collecting a “clearly unreasonable and exploitive fee” from a vulnerable client.

Everett E. Powell II had only been admitted to the bar for a few months in 2004 when T.G. and her boyfriend J.S. consulted him about getting access to funds in a trust. T.G. had been represented by Mark E. Ross in a settlement of a personal injury action. The trust was created to hold the $42,500 from the settlement in order to preserve T.G.’s eligibility for public assistance and prevent depletion of funds by T.G. or those who may not be acting in her best interest, like J.S. T.G. had a history of drug and alcohol abuse and said she was in an abusive and controlling relationship with J.S.

Ross declined to give T.G. access to the trust account, so T.G. went to Powell. Because she didn’t have money to pay a fee upfront, she agreed to a contingent fee of one-third of whatever was in the trust. Powell misrepresented to Ross that he was going to take over as trustee when in fact he intended to dissolve the trust. As soon as he became successor trustee, he deposited a check that was intended to pay for medical bills into the trust, and Powell paid himself $14,815.55 as his fee, and gave T.G. nearly $30,000. The remaining funds remained in the account until bank fees depleted them.

In In the Matter of Everett E. Powell, II, No. 49S00-0910-DI-426, the high court found Powell violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.5(a) by collecting the unreasonable fee. While he may have reasonably believed in the beginning that removing Ross as trustee could be contested or how much money was in the account, the case quickly proved to be relatively conflict-free as Ross agreed to resign and he then knew how much money was in the account.

Powell claimed that his fee could be justified by “red flags” raised by a client complaining about a former attorney because that client could then treat him the same way and he could have faced a legal action for breach of trust.

“Even if ‘red flags’ that a client may be difficult to deal with could justify a higher fee than would be reasonable otherwise, we reject any suggestion that an attorney's concern that he may be committing legal malpractice in representing a client justifies charging the client a higher fee,” states the per curiam opinion. “We do not suggest that a contingent fee must be reduced every time a case turns out to be easier or more lucrative than contemplated by the parties at the outset. But collection of a fee under the original agreement is unreasonable when it gives the attorney an unconscionable windfall under the totality of the circumstances.”

The justices found Powell wasn’t remorseful, made contradictory and evasive assertions during the proceedings, didn’t fully cooperate with the Disciplinary Commission’s investigation, knew his client was vulnerable, made misrepresentations to Ross, and never made restitution. Powell has no disciplinary history and he was a newly admitted attorney at the time of the misconduct.

After looking at previous disciplinary actions involving fee violations, the justices imposed a 120-day suspension without automatic reinstatement, beginning Nov. 11.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 3rd Para Typo
    Good coverage - typo shifts "T.G." to "T.S." at beginning of third paragraph.

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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT