Return Of Fee Order Affirmed

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a small claims court decision ordering the return of a substantial portion of a legal fee

In early April 2023, Jennings contacted Thompson to inquire about his ability to represent [her son] Quinton, who had been convicted and imprisoned following a lengthy jury trial. Thompson, an attorney who represents individuals seeking various forms of post-conviction relief, informed Jennings that he required a $5000 retainer. On April 4, Jennings obtained a $2000 cashier’s check made payable to Thompson and gave it to him later that month.

Then

At some point, Thompson informed Jennings that he would not speak with Quinton until she had paid the entire $5000 retainer. On May 19, 2023, Jennings obtained a $3000 cashier’s check made payable to Thompson and gave it to him. Shortly thereafter, they had a conference call with Quinton. This was the first and only conversation Thompson had with Quinton.

According to Jennings, Quinton and Thompson argued during the call about the proposed scope of Thompson’s legal representation, and Quinton told Thompson that he did not want his services. Thompson acknowledged that Quinton wanted services beyond what he was willing to provide and that they could not agree on the scope of representation, but Thompson testified that Quinton agreed to hire him. In any case, Thompson never obtained a written agreement of services signed by Quinton, nor did Jennings execute the Proposed Contract. On or about June 11, Jennings requested the return of the $5000, but Thompson refused.

She sued in small claims court for return of the fee; the court ordered the return of $4,280.

He appealed

Here, the trial court determined that $5000 in attorney fees was an unreasonable amount for Thompson to charge just to determine whether he would provide legal services for Quinton. Further, under the circumstances, the court determined that equity dictated Thompson should be paid for the two hours of phone calls he had with Jennings and Quinton in May but that it would be inequitable for Thompson to be paid for services he was never hired by Quinton to perform. Thompson has failed to establish that the trial court erred in its balancing of the equities and determination of reasonable attorney fees.

Thompson’s final argument is perplexing. He claims that he was denied due process because the trial court “fail[ed] to reasonably balance the time the parties had to present their mutual cases” and “refus[ed] to permit certain offers of proof.” Appellant’s Brief at 12. As explained in the trial court’s order denying Thompson’s motion to correct error, there was not a “gross imbalance of time” allocated to the parties at the hearing. Id. Regardless, Thompson provides us with no relevant authority, and we are aware of none, establishing that a due process violation occurs when a small claims defendant is not given a similar amount of time as the plaintiff to present his case. Further, Thompson has not directed us to anywhere in the record where the trial court excluded evidence proffered by him or refused to allow him to make an offer of proof regarding the excluded evidence.

In sum, Thompson’s arguments on appeal are without merit, and he has failed to establish prima facie error.

(Mike Frisch)