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. 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