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

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT