In Re Laurence S. Fordham case brief summary
423 Mass. 481, 668 N.E.2d 816 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1149 (2007)
SYNOPSIS:
In the matter of respondent attorney, petitioner bar counsel sought review of the decision of the Board of Bar Overseers (Massachusetts), which dismissed a petition for discipline filed by bar counsel against the attorney for charging excessive fees. A justice of the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Suffolk (Massachusetts) denied the attorney's motion to dismiss bar counsel's appeal.
OVERVIEW:
-The bar counsel filed a petition for discipline against the attorney alleging that the attorney charged excessive fees for a drunken driving case.
-The Board of Bar Overseers (board) dismissed the petition after hearings on the matter.
-A lower court justice denied the attorney's motion to dismiss bar counsel's appeal to the lower court, and the court affirmed the decision.
ISSUE:
Was the attorney's fee excessive?
HOLDING:
Yes. The court found that the attorney charged a clearly excessive fee pursuant to Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. R. 3:07, DR 2-106(B), departing substantially from the obligation of professional responsibility owed to his client, and ordered that a judgment be entered in the lower court imposing a public censure.
ANALYSIS:
The court found that
(1) it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal,
(2) expert testimony indicated that the number of hours devoted to the case was substantially in excess of the hours a prudent experienced lawyer would have spent,
(3) the attorney's inexperience did not justify the high fee, as the client should not have paid for the education of the attorney, and finally
(4) the disciplinary rule regarding excessive fees did not inquire into the nature of the attorney's good faith or diligence.
OUTCOME: The court found that the attorney had charged a clearly excessive fee, and ordered that a judgment be entered in the lower court imposing a public censure. Expert testimony indicated that the attorney's hours substantially exceeded the hours a prudent experienced lawyer would have spent, and the attorney's inexperience did not justify the high fee. The disciplinary rule did not inquire into whether the fees were charged in good faith.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
423 Mass. 481, 668 N.E.2d 816 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1149 (2007)
SYNOPSIS:
In the matter of respondent attorney, petitioner bar counsel sought review of the decision of the Board of Bar Overseers (Massachusetts), which dismissed a petition for discipline filed by bar counsel against the attorney for charging excessive fees. A justice of the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Suffolk (Massachusetts) denied the attorney's motion to dismiss bar counsel's appeal.
OVERVIEW:
-The bar counsel filed a petition for discipline against the attorney alleging that the attorney charged excessive fees for a drunken driving case.
-The Board of Bar Overseers (board) dismissed the petition after hearings on the matter.
-A lower court justice denied the attorney's motion to dismiss bar counsel's appeal to the lower court, and the court affirmed the decision.
ISSUE:
Was the attorney's fee excessive?
HOLDING:
Yes. The court found that the attorney charged a clearly excessive fee pursuant to Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. R. 3:07, DR 2-106(B), departing substantially from the obligation of professional responsibility owed to his client, and ordered that a judgment be entered in the lower court imposing a public censure.
ANALYSIS:
The court found that
(1) it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal,
(2) expert testimony indicated that the number of hours devoted to the case was substantially in excess of the hours a prudent experienced lawyer would have spent,
(3) the attorney's inexperience did not justify the high fee, as the client should not have paid for the education of the attorney, and finally
(4) the disciplinary rule regarding excessive fees did not inquire into the nature of the attorney's good faith or diligence.
OUTCOME: The court found that the attorney had charged a clearly excessive fee, and ordered that a judgment be entered in the lower court imposing a public censure. Expert testimony indicated that the attorney's hours substantially exceeded the hours a prudent experienced lawyer would have spent, and the attorney's inexperience did not justify the high fee. The disciplinary rule did not inquire into whether the fees were charged in good faith.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
The case also stands for the proposition that a client's consent to a clearly excessive fee will not save the lawyer from public discipline. also, cert. was denied in 1997, not 2007.
ReplyDelete