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.