Fee Misconduct Leads To Lengthy Suspension

The Oregon Supreme Court ordered a two-year suspension of an attorney based on findings of misconduct in two of three charged matters. The attorney had charged a fee for representation in a social security matter where court approval of the fee was required. His defense that his bill was only for informational purposes was rejected:

There is no indication on any bill that the SSA matter billing was for informational purposes only or that the accused did not expect the Millers to pay the charges for the SSA matter.  In June 2003, the accused sent Miller a summary statement with separate pages for each matter.  On the page for the SSA matter, the summary statement states, “Balance Now Due $638.15.”  The summary statement for the dissolution matter similarly states, “Balance Now Due” and the total amount due includes fees for the SSA matter entries that were listed under the dissolution matter in earlier bills.  The later bills set out the total balance from the prior bill, indicate the amount subtracted for “payments received” and the amount added for “current charges” — including those for the SSA matter.  The bills identify the resulting number as the “Balance Now Due.”  We find that the accused charged Miller for SSA work.

In the other matter where misconduct was found:

The accused, while suspended from the practice of law, was working as a legal assistant for another attorney, Todd, on a dissolution matter for Albright, who had retained the accused prior to his suspension.  The trial panel found that Todd’s office charged Albright’s credit card $7,000 for services rendered, that those services had been rendered, and that Albright had authorized that charge.  Albright later terminated Todd’s legal services, challenged the fee, and filed a Bar complaint.  In response to the challenge to the fee, the accused — by then practicing again after the expiration of his suspension — prepared an affidavit concerning the services and the fee.  He then prepared and sent Albright a bill charging her a fee for the time spent preparing and editing that affidavit.  The trial panel concluded that such a charge was an excessive fee because this court has held that an attorney may not charge a client for time spent in a fee dispute. 

The sanction was influenced by the attorney’s record of prior discipline. (Mike Frisch)