« Ind. Law - More on "I&M fight costs Fort Wayne $300,000 for lawyers" | Main | Ind. Law - Indiana store-front law offices »

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Ind. Courts - More on: Interesting disciplinary decision filed Nov. 3rd by the Supreme Court

On Nov. 5th, the ILB posted this entry about a public reprimand issued by the Supreme Court in In the Matter of Daniel E. Moore.

According to the Order, by which the Court approved a settlement agreement, a client had retained Moore "to represent her in a dissolution of marriage action. Client paid Respondent $15,000 pursuant to an agreement that this would be his total 'flat' or 'fixed' fee." Later "Respondent requested Client pay him an additional $5,000, which Client paid. In April 2006, Respondent requested Client pay him an additional $1,500, which Client paid in two installments. In neither instance did Respondent advise Client to consult with independent counsel before agreeing to amend the fee agreement to his advantage."

The Court issued a public reprimand to "Respondent" for charging an unreasonable fee, and for amending the fee agreement without advising the client in writing about the desirability of seeking independent advice. Justice Dickson dissented:

Dickson, J., dissents and would reject the agreement, believing a period of suspension is in order in the absence of any showing that Respondent refunded the fees received above his initial quote of $15,000 for a "flat" or "fixed" fee.
Last evening Matt Thacker of the Jeffersonville / New Albany Evening News & Tribune reported under the headline "Clark Judge Moore reprimanded for fees charged as attorney." From the story:
Clark County Circuit Court Judge Dan Moore was publicly reprimanded last week by the Indiana Supreme Court for his handling of a divorce case that began in 2004.

The court found that Moore — who became judge in January — violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules by charging an unreasonable fee and amending the fee agreement with his client without advising her in writing the desirability of seeking advice from independent counsel.

Moore said he was representing a woman who had been battered at the start of her divorce. He said the work, which lasted 2 1/2 years, included a premarital agreement, protective order case, interlocutory appeal work and advice and service on a criminal case against her husband.

“Documents pertaining to modifications in our agreement, in hindsight, did not meet technical requirements of Supreme Court Rules,” Moore said in a statement to The Evening News.

According to the Supreme Court ruling, Moore was retained by an unnamed client to represent her in a dissolution of marriage. The client paid Moore $15,000 that, according to an agreement, would be his “fixed” fee, the decision states.

In May 2005, Moore reportedly asked his client to pay an additional $5,000 and another $1,500 in April 2006.

The Supreme Court Disciplinary Committee found that Moore never advised his client to consult with independent counsel before agreeing to amend the fee to his advantage.

“I made a mistake in not tracking those requirements more clearly in the midst of my work on those cases,” Moore said. “I respect the final resolution of these matters by the Supreme Court.”

The court found also stated that Moore had no disciplinary history and was cooperative with the commission. It states that Moore worked “diligently and competently” on the case.

Six of seven justices [ILB - sic.] concurred with the decision to reprimand Moore. Justice Brent E. Dickson dissented, arguing that Moore should face a period of suspension without any evidence Moore refunded the additional $6,500 paid by the client.

Moore will have to pay any costs for the Supreme Court proceedings.

Here is how the matter is recorded on the Indiana Roll of Attorneys.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 10, 2009 07:20 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions