It had to happen; Blogger Beware – the hand you bite may bite back; Durham Suspended; Parenting Time Changes; Indiana Talks.

I knew it would happen

I know this lawyer, and the nice things the hearing officer reported to the Supreme Court about her are true, from my experience. But she got reprimanded. I must admit, the facts are hard to decipher from the recitation of events in the opinion, but it appears that the lawyer took on a big case, apparently too big for a single lawyer to take on in the manner she did. She created a class of 64 plaintiffs who may not have had similar interests (since some had settled their claims before becoming part of the class), and they gave her authority to settle without getting further input from the clients, which is power that a lawyer should not have. The Court says that they insisted on it, and she accepted the authority. During mediation, she had a short period of time to accept or reject an offer that seemed appropriate for all 64 clients. She exercised the authority to settle rather than to leave the offer on the table. (Thanks OC and mediator).

It is not clear who reported the matter, but it does not sound (from the opinion) that any of the clients were upset with the settlement, offended by her actions, or thought any inappropriate action had occurred, but that is not the test under Rule 8.4.  Lawyers must let the clients make the decisions to settle, as painful as that can be from time to time (Rule 1.2(a)). Aggregate settlements are tricky creatures, and must be handled with care and with the informed consent of each client (Rule 1.8(g)). When lawyers fail to get informed consent, it usually leads to the failure to explain a matter so the client can make an informed decision (Rule 1.4(b)).

Although the Disciplinary Commission lawyer argued for and sought a suspension from the practice, the public reprimand seems right.

****

Blogger Beware

The National Law Journal reported that a Chicago lawyer and blogger got caught up in a legal matter that prompted her to make allegations that the IL probate process is “a sleazy world of probate” and that there is “malpractice and malfeasance by attorneys and the court.”  Amazingly someone took offense at that.  The lawyer Joanne Denison now faces an ethics complaint.

It seems to stem from the court rejecting an application by Denison to serve as a guardian, after the court found that Denison had notarized the signature of a woman who might have been  suffering from dementia at the time of the signature, and that the document favored the woman’s daughter, a client of Denison, over others in the family.  They thought that was worthy of disqualification from serving as guardian in this matter. Denison went ballistic, created a blog in the name of the potential ward, and started blasting away at the judges and lawyers alike.  She named names and recounted allegations, apparently without due regard to the facts underlying the matters.

The ethics allegation is that the blog contains “comments that are false or made with reckless disregard for the truth.”  Oops.

I will take that into consideration as I write and edit this blog, and invite others to do likewise in their own writings.  As one reply to the NLJ article mentions, Rule 8.3(a) states: “A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of Rule 8.4(b) or Rule 8.4(c) shall inform the appropriate professional authority.”  That is not an invitation to inform via blog.

H/T Patrick Olmstead

****

Durham Suspended

Indy Ponzi scheme convict Tim Durham, the subject of a previous post here, was suspended from the practice of law based on his finding of guilt in the $200M fraud case of Fair Finance. Durham was sentenced to 50 years, so unless he was planning a jail-house lawyer routine, this finishes his legal career. The Order is here.

The Indy Star claimed [login required] it was the Disciplinary Commission that suspended him, but we know  that the Supreme Court keeps that power to itself. Durham still has a challenge to the suspension, but…

BTW, this is Durham’s second suspension, the first was due to failure to pay his annual registration fee last October.  Kirkland & Ellis, one of the biggest of BigLaw firms in Chicago, has decided to provide a pro bono appeal for Durham, according to the Indiana Business Journal. If you cannot pay registration for your license, you probably qualify for indigent services.Good to see the poor getting adequate legal representation to protect their rights. It worked so well for Mike Tyson.

Parenting Time changes

Two lawyers in my office have produced a short video on the changes in the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. The changes go into effect on March 1.

You may want to watch, or link to it. Andy Perkins and Rachel Arndt did a nice job, here.

IndianaTalks.com Interview

Indy lawyer Stephen Terrell will be interviewing me this coming Tuesday, Feb. 26 at 9:00 pm on his weekly online “radio” show. Steve has been on-line for 3 weeks now, and has had some very interesting interviews.  You can listen by tuning your browser to http://www.indianatalks.com/.  Steve discusses information of the week, and then conducts his interview for much of the hour.

Don’t know what we will talk about, but Steve and I, while friends for a decade, disagree about most of the important things in life, and this will be my chance to show him the errors of his ways for you all to hear. Plans are to discuss law, politics and religion. Where could we disagree about any of these matters?

I only hope the Hoosiers have put the Gophers away by 9:00.

Advertisement

Ethics and Conflict Issues in Business Representation; Conour Questions –

BUSINESS ETHICS FOR LAWYERS

I will be doing a seminar on Feb. 28 for ICLEF, the legal education provider created by the Indiana State Bar Association in the 1970s to help get lawyers better prepared to handle their clients’ legal matters. Now a stand-alone not for profit corporation ICLEF is the leading provider of Continuing Legal Education in Indiana..

The seminar title is Developing and Representing the Business Entity, and my portion is Ethics in a Business Practice. We will be discussing the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Traps of working with businesses and the Remedies for lawyers and businesses if unethical events occur.

In focusing on the Rules of Professional Conduct, we will discuss recent cases in state and federal courts where the clients complained that their lawyer had jumped sides, and how the courts and lawyers handled that issue. Motions to Disqualify some of the biggest law firms you know will be reviewed, and we will review how the courts’ findings and orders, when presented with valid conflict issues protect the business or the lawyers.

We will also review other events that may prompt a client to think that the loyalty obligation discussed in comment 1 to Rule 1.7 has been violated.

Program chair, Jeffrey Nickloy (a lawyer I have sent clients to for complex issues) has brought together a faculty of some of the brightest lawyers in Indiana to present on various topics that day. The Business Law Section and the Ethics Committee of the ISBA will be well represented.

Registration materials are available here.

***

Bill Conour

The Indianapolis Star had a long story about Bill Conour on Sunday, here.  I never worked with Bill, but you could not be a lawyer in the state for the past 30 years and not know about him, his practice, or his atrium.

I will do a more thorough analysis of his fall, his plea, and his resignation in a few weeks, but I would like a few comments about Bill from those of you who knew him, worked with him, did or did not get cheated by him.

I will say (treading carefully as a Maurer grad, talking about our friends and fellow IU law siblings at McKinney) that the first time I walked into the Inlow Hall atrium, and saw the decor, I overheard a comment (it has been years ago, maybe it was my comment) that “the decor looks like a 1950s prison cell block,” with the metal wrapped columns to the ceiling.  So long as it carries Bill Conour’s name (together with that of his ex-wife Jennifer), the image will fit.

Please share comments on Bill and his situation, if you will.

Win One, Still Trouble; Charge for That? Neglect of Client in several ways

This is a Win?
The lawyer got sued for malpractice for failure to talk client out of a litigation financing deal. The court ruled that he wins since the lawyer did not refer the client to the lender, did not recommend the use of a litigation financing  program, and did not offer an opinion supporting the deal with the lender when the client made the loan.

Elwin Francis suffered a personal injury. He filed suit, but found himself needing funds up front, So, he borrowed funds from Law Bucks, who submitted a lien for $96,000 on the settlement.

The law firm representing Mr. Francis settled the personal injury matter for $150,000, with consent, and when all the expenses were  paid, Mr. Francis got a check for $111. He did not think that was enough, so he sued his lawyers. [Apparently the client forgot the $$ he got from Law Bucks]. The NY court looked at the documents, at the duty that the lawyer took on in representing Mr. Francis, and at the facts to see if there was conflicting duties that extended to Law Bucks, and found there was no endorsement or contacts between the firm and Law Bucks.

Getting sued by a client is trouble, but winning is good.

Lesson for us?  Stay out of endorsing a lender in a litigation financing program. You may become the guarantor.

***

Charge for that?

Rule 1.8(j) has been around for a while. It is a pretty straightforward rule: “A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced.”  Pretty close to a “Thou shalt not ….” with fewer exceptions than the Rule on Hearsay.

Tom Lowe, a lawyer from Minnesota is old enough to have been around when the MN Supreme Court enacted that rule there.  Sexual relations rulings in ethics cases have been around for decades, and the Rule changes started popping up in several states in the late 1990s (IL 1997, Kan 1998). The no-sex Rule came about as a part of the McCrate Amendments to the Model ABA Rules of Professional Conduct in 2002. Indiana adopted the current Rule 1.8(j) on Sept. 30, 2004, as part of the comprehensive update of the RPC (at p. 39 of the Order)*

So Lowe not only violated that rule, but, to add insult to injury he added the time he spent with her (a family law client) while he breached the rule to her bill.  [insert your inappropriate hourly billing (or quarter-hour or one/tenth hour) or other time based billing quip at this spot – I am trying desperately to leave those and other puns out of the post.]

There are important reasons for the rule about sex with a client, and I am not making fun of those, but his billing for his time?  That reminds me of this song…

Lowe got an indefinite suspension of his license, with a minimum period of 15 months before he may apply for renewal. Well done MN.

* I chaired the ISBA subcommittee that reviewed the ABA proposals and led to the addition of 1.8(j) to the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. Thanks to my subcommittee.

***

Client Neglect Stemming from Mental Health Issues

The front page of the Indiana Judges & Lawyers Assistance Program website states: Research has shown that lawyers may suffer from substance abuse and depression at a rate higher than the general population. Experience has shown that lawyers may be more reluctant than others to seek help for their own problems.

One of the critical consequences of mental health problems is the impact on our clients.  As stated by JLAP Ex. Dir. Terry Harrell: “When I hear that a good lawyer, with no history of neglecting clients, is not returning telephone calls — my radar goes up and I start looking for other signs of depression.” She shares statistics on the increased level of mental health problems that should cause every lawyer to take a slow look in the mirror. Women lawyers appear to have a 10% greater problem than the general female population, while male lawyers  reportedly suffer a problem with depression at a rate more than 200% of the general male population.

When lawyers neglect clients for any reason the clients often get upset. If there is not a good reason for the perceived neglect (such as, “I am in trial all month…”) and the client does not see a way to successfully get the lawyer’s attention, a complaint to the Disciplinary Commission may be their only recourse.

Several cases recently have highlighted the issue of mental health, and I will focus on one. This lawyer (I don’t need to name him) recently stipulated to the following facts: The misconduct includes neglecting clients’ cases, failing to do the work for which he was hired, failing to respond to clients’ requests for information, failing to inform clients of the status of their cases, failing to safeguard unearned fees by placing them in a trust account, and failing to completely refund unearned fees. Respondent knew he was suffering from depression and other health related issues that interfered with his ability to attend to his clients’ needs.”

The lawyer and the Commission agreed that these violations of the Rules occurred: “The parties agree that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules prohibiting the following misconduct: Rule 1.3: Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. 1.4(a)(3): Failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter. 1.4(a)(4): Failure to comply promptly with a client’s reasonable requests for information. 1.15(a): Failure to safeguard property of a client. 1.16(a)(2): Failure to withdraw from representation when the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client. 1.16(d): Failure to refund an unearned fee promptly upon termination of representation. 3.2: Failure to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of a client.”  That is quite a list.

There is the specific requirement under Rule 1.16(a)(2) that states the affirmative duty that a lawyer “shall not represent a client…if: (2) the lawyer’s physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer’s ability to represent the client.”

We need to talk about this situation more.  There was this previous post on Age Related Issues in the Law, but it did not tie the violation to 1.16(a)(2). Apparently we need to have more discussion about this.  There are 10,000 Baby Boomers hitting 65 every day. They are not all lawyers, but enough of them are for problems to show up..  65 is not the magic age where age related cognitive disorder hits, but it is one birthday closer to the issue showing up.

Mental illness extends far beyond age related disorder, and beyond depression, bi-polar disorder and other issues.  But it hits lawyers in greater numbers than the general population.  When it hits, all the suffering lawyer’s clients are affected. Be aware.