A Successful Compassionate Collaboration Without A Lawyer’s Help

An interesting disciplinary matter has led to a proposed stayed six-month suspension of two attorneys from the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct.

The underlying case involved the death  by suicide of a 16-year-old and potential claims against a hospital and her care providers.

The parents – Scott and Sally in the report- sought a non-traditional approach to the tragedy, an attempt to resolve the matter through a process of “compassionate collaboration.”

They were discouraged by a number of attorneys but proceeded nonetheless.

They consulted with one of the Respondents, who was less dismissive of the compassionate collaboration concept than other consulted attorneys and offered to represent the parents/estate for a reduced 20% contingency fee.

No agreement was ever signed and a total of about 15 hours was devoted to the representation by the attorney.

The non-traditional approach was “remarkably successful” in achieving Scott and Sally’s goals. They negotiated a satisfactory settlement without the participation of the attorney. 

Then came trouble.

When Scott told the attorney the news and sought probate help, the attorney demanded the 20% and brought in the second Respondent to assist on the estate.

Respondent #2 made a call to the hospital to discuss fees. Scott fired him and hired new counsel on the following day. 

Respondent #2 brought in his partner who plays “hardball.”

The Board

It is one thing to charge a clearly excessive fee; it is quite another to collect that fee by threatening to publicly accuse a father, who is in the throes of recovery from the death of his daughter, of being a fraud and a liar. Yet that is the course Respondents followed by deferring to [their attorney] Wilson and his “hardball” litigation tactics.

There are a number of mitigating factors found by the Board. (Mike Frisch)