ILNews

Order that law firm pay attorney fees reversed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed today an order awarding attorneys fees based on the actions of an Indianapolis law firm in a dispute involving the dissolution of another firm, finding the record didn't provide any insight into why the trial court granted the award.

In James W. Smyth v. Judy G. Hester and the Estate of Timothy P. Brazill; Plews Shadley Racher & Braun, as intervenor, No. 29A02-0803-CV-237, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun appealed the trial court order awarding attorney fees to Judy Hester and the Estate of Timothy P. Brazill. Hester, Brazill, and James Smyth practiced law together under the partnership Smyth Brazill Hester until Smyth advised the other two partners their partnership was over. A month later, Brazill died and Smyth and Hester were unable to agree as to how to end the partnership.

Smyth retained Plews as counsel to represent him in his complaint against Hester and Brazill's estate seeking damages, an accounting, and the appointment of receiver over SBH based upon alleged breach of fiduciary duties by Hester and Brazill. The estate also alleged breach of fiduciary duty and conversion against Smyth and requested an accounting and declaratory judgment. Hester counterclaimed against Smyth alleging breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, and conversion, and also requested for accounting.

The estate and Hester filed a motion for attorney fees and costs against Plews and Smyth because they believed Smyth and the firm were litigating a frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless claim in bad faith. The trial court found their actions in litigating the matters illustrated "their frivolous, unreasonable, and bad faith conduct in this case."

The Court of Appeals agreed in general with Plews' argument on appeal that the trial court order contained no finding of fact to support the judgment for attorney fees. None of the findings of fact contain a specific reference to a problematic litigation action and none of the conclusions of law reflect the legal authority and standard for an attorney fee award, wrote Judge Carr Darden.

"We acknowledge that the record may include some questionable litigation tactics that might support the trial court's exercise of its discretion to award attorney fees," the judge wrote. "However, our review in that regard is impaired by the fact that the order appealed does not provide us with any insight as to the trial court's reason for the award of attorney fees in this case, i.e., what the trial court found to be frivolous, unreasonable, and bad faith conduct. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for further consideration and explanation of its judgment in that regard."

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. 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.

  2. 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!

  3. 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?

  4. If justice is not found in a court room, it's time to clean house!!! Even judges are accountable to a higher Judge!!!

  5. The small claims system, based on my recent and current usage of it, is not exactly a shining example of justice prevailing. The system appears slow and clunky and people involved seem uninterested in actually serving justice within a reasonable time frame. Any improvement in accountability and performance would gain a vote from me. Speaking of voting, what do the people know about judges and justice from the bench perspective. I think they have a tendency to "vote" for judges based on party affiliation or name coolness factor (like Stoner, for example!). I don't know what to do in my current situation other than grin and bear it, but my case is an example of things working neither smoothly, effectively nor expeditiously. After this experience I'd pay more to have the higher courts hear the case -- if I had the money. Oh the conundrum.

ADVERTISEMENT