Pay To Play

The Kentucky Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline for a Nevada sanction and publicly reprimanded an attorney

The violations stemmed from Hale’s representation of two, unrelated, automobile accident personal-injury clients. In preparation for arbitration and trial, Hale Injury Law (HIL) employed a doctor as a medical expert to opine on these clients’ injuries and provide expert reports for them. The doctor charged fees of $12,760 to one client and $17,125 to the other client for his services as an expert witness. Hale was in a longterm relationship with the doctor while HIL represented the two clients. Hale did not disclose the relationship, explain the potential harm, and did not obtain their informed consent regarding the conflict of interest.

Later, one of HIL’s associates left HIL. The two clients transferred their cases with that associate. HIL then filed liens against the recoveries in both cases, which included reimbursement for expert fees to the doctor. Hale further directed her bookkeeper to issue a check from her IOLTA to pay the doctor for these two cases and other cases in which he had provided expert services and had treated clients of HIL on a lien basis. Hale did not have money in her IOLTA at any time for one of these cases and had insufficient money in her IOLTA for the other case. Although Hale directed her
bookkeeper to transfer money from the cost account to the IOLTA account to cover the check to the doctor, the bookkeeper did not do so.

As to RPC 1.7(1)(a)(2), the [Nevada Disciplinary] Board concluded that Hale’s relationship with the doctor posed a significant risk of materially limiting her responsibilities to the two clients, creating a conflict of interest; that the relationship could have influenced her treatment of the doctor, such as using client funds to pay him instead of advancing her own funds to do so; and Hale failed to obtain informed consent from the two clients regarding this conflict as required by RPC 1.7(b). As to RPC 1.15(a), which mandates that lawyers keep client funds and other property safe and separate from their own, the Board concluded that Hale’s act of paying the doctor from her IOLTA for the two clients placed other clients’ monies at risk.

(Mike Frisch)