« Ind. Courts - Showdown on Judicial Nominee Set for Next Week: David Hamilton's 7th Circuit nomination | Main | Courts - More on: "Judges In Pa. Corruption Case Likely to Evade Civil Charges" Indiana case mentioned »

Thursday, November 12, 2009

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

Updating this ILB entry from Nov. 10th, Ben Zion Hershberg reported in a Louisville Courier Journal story dated Nov. 11th headlined "Fee from private practice leads to reprimand." Some quotes:

[Daniel] Moore said he should have been more aware of the requirements in the rule about increasing fees.

“Had I been more aware of the technicalities of that rule, I would have documented it better,” he said.

In addition to typical divorce issues, he said, the case also involved other complications, including an unusual appeal of a pre-nuptial agreement.

“All the work was done in the case,” Moore said. In tabulating his time and effort for the commission, he said, the value of his work totaled more than $30,000.

The disciplinary commission’s Nov. 3 order did not identify Moore’s client, and he declined to identify her.

In its order, the commission said Moore “diligently and competently worked” on the case. The order said that after agreeing to charge a flat $15,000 fee, Moore asked his client for an additional $5,000 in May 2005 and $1,500 more in April 2006, and the higher amounts were paid.

“In neither instance” did Moore tell his client “to consult with an independent counsel” before agreeing to the increases, as required by the professional rule, the order said.

As a result, the disciplinary commission decided to issue a public reprimand. The order did not require Moore to refund the additional money, and Moore said he does not plan to do so.

Here is the Order itself, which is worth reading.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 12, 2009 08:57 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts