In re Anonymous

657 N.E.2d 394, 1995 Ind. LEXIS 157, 1995 WL 676082
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1995
DocketNo. 71S00-9407-DI-631
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 657 N.E.2d 394 (In re Anonymous) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Anonymous, 657 N.E.2d 394, 1995 Ind. LEXIS 157, 1995 WL 676082 (Ind. 1995).

Opinion

DISCIPLINARY ACTION

PER CURIAM.

The respondent in this attorney disciplinary action was charged with violating Rule 1.5(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law. The Disciplinary Commission and the respondent have reached a conditional agreement for discipline, pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23, Section 11(g), in which they stipulate the facts and agree that a private reprimand is an appropriate disciplinary sanction for the misconduct that occurred. We agree, and therefore approve the tendered agreement. Additionally, this case presents an opportunity for this Court to educate the Bar as to necessity that contingent fee agreements in worker's compensation actions be in writing.

Upon being retained to represent an employee (the "client") in a worker's compensation claim, the respondent explained to his new client that his attorney fees would be contingent upon recovery of benefits. He also explained that the fee would be Hmited by the worker's compensation regulations governing attorney fees, and also apparently advised his client of specific provisions of such laws. He did not, however, prepare and furnish the client with a written contingent fee agreement explaining the method by which the fees would be determined. Later, the respondent settled his client's claim for $3,817.02. Of that amount, he forwarded $2,942.44 to his client, retaining $863.40 in attorney fees and $11.18 in costs. The respondent calculated the fee pursuant to applicable fee schedules promulgated by the Indiana Worker's Compensation Board.1 [395]*395During the course of these disciplinary proceedings, the respondent attributed his failure to provide his client with a written agreement to his mistaken belief that the fee schedules obviated any need for such documentation.

Despite the provisions in the Indiana Administrative Code establishing attorney fee schedules for worker's compensation actions, any contingent fee agreement entered with a client in a worker's compensation action must be memorialized in writing pursuant to Ind.Professional Conduct Rule 1.5(c), which provides:

A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the matter for which the service is rendered, except in a matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by paragraph (d)2 or other law. A contingent fee agreement shall be in writing and shall state the method by which the fee is to be determined, including the percentage or percentages that shall accrue to the lawyer in the event of settlement, trial or appeal, litigation and other expenses to be deducted from the recovery, and whether such expenses are to be deducted before or after the contingent fee is calculated. Upon conclusion of a contingent fee matter, the lawyer shall provide the client with a written statement stating the outcome of the matter and, if there is a recovery, showing remittance to the client and the method of its determination.

Written statements explaining the method by which attorney fees will be calculated reduce the possibility of misunderstandings between attorneys and their clients.3 An attorney should not assume that, absent a written agreement, legal provisions establishing limits on contingent fees will be fully understood by the client. The principles underlying the requirement that contingent fee agreements be written are as applicable to situations where fee ceilings apply as to those where they do not. We therefore find that the respondent violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(c) by failing to provide to his client the requisite written contingent fee agreement.

Costs of this proceeding are assessed against the respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wernle, Ristine & Ayers v. Yund
758 N.E.2d 558 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
657 N.E.2d 394, 1995 Ind. LEXIS 157, 1995 WL 676082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-anonymous-ind-1995.