Can an Existing Fee Agreement be Modified?

One of the first things a client does after meeting with and deciding to hire a lawyer, is she signs the fee agreement. Fee agreements are a way for the lawyer to convey to the client and the client to understand what she will be expected to pay for the lawyer’s services. It also lays out the scope of the lawyer’s representation.

However, sometimes circumstances change after the original fee agreement is signed. The case may become more involved that originally thought or may require hiring an additional lawyer to assist with the case. When something changes and the original fee agreement is no longer applicable, can the fee agreement be modified?

An American Bar Association Ethics Opinion which was released in July answered this question. In order to modify an original fee agreement, the lawyer needs to show that at the time the fee agreement was modified, the modification was reasonable under the circumstances and that the client agreed to the modification. As long as the lawyer can show that there was a reasonable need to modify the fee agreement and the client agreed to it, a fee agreement can be modified if the original one is no longer applicable. However, if the lawyer does not have a reasonable need to modify or does not notify the client, there may be a claim for punitive damages under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

If your attorney modified your fee agreement without discussing it with you first, contact our office to discuss your potential legal malpractice claim.

What the Future Holds for Saint Francis Hospital / Reardon Sex Abuse Cases

In follow-up to the August 1, 2011 court ruling on the defense lawyer’s withholding evidence in the Saint Francis Hospital / Reardon sex abuse case, the question becomes, what does this mean for the cases that settled without the benefit of this new evidence?

It is clear from the judge’s ruling that the evidence was highly relevant to the victim’s cases. The problem is, several victim’s settled their claims with Saint Francis Hospital before this evidence was turned over. The victim’s claims seem much more obvious now and it remains to be seen if several of the victim’s will try to get their cases re-opened in court because they did not have the benefit of this evidence when they settled their claims of sexual abuse by an employee of Saint Francis Hospital. Oddly here is a post from the website of the defense firm which provided the very late disclosure. http://www.employerslawblog.com/Entry.aspx?eID=344 St. Francis Hospital's own lawyers who provided these bylaws late and who were representing St. Francis at the time of the trials clearly understood their responsibility and the risk to their client St Francis Hospital. Risks that most law students would recognize.

To learn more about sex abuse cases, click here for an article posted on www.stangerlaw.com.

Bylaws Withheld in Saint Francis Hospital / Reardon Sex Abuse Cases

In follow-up to yesterday’s post, the August 1, 2011 court ruling in the Saint Francis Hospital / Reardon sex abuse case, let’s examine what evidence was improperly withheld by the defense lawyers. The lawyers for Saint Francis Hospital only recently turned over to the victim’s lawyers, Saint Francis Hospital’s medical staff bylaws for 8 years from early 1960 to early 1980. These bylaws set forth procedures for the hospital when reviewing research by it’s medical staff. The victims allege that the abuse by Reardon would have stopped if Saint Francis Hospital complied with this written policy of the doctors who worked at Saint Francis Hospital. These were safeguards by Saint Francis Hospital which were not followed.

The bylaws were clearly relevant to the victim’s claims. And the judge found that the defense lawyer’s failure to provide this evidence to the victims was unethical. This information was requested by the victim’s lawyers during the years leading up to trial but the defense lawyers for Saint Francis Hospital failed to turn any of this evidence over until mid-way through the second victim’s trial. During the second trial they turned over only the tip of the iceberg. The remaining bylaws were turned over in connection with a motion for sanctions filed after the second trial, only after the verdict for more than $2,000,000 against Saint Francis Hospital. The third trial is coming up soon, these never before seen bylaws will play an important role in upcoming trials.

To learn more about the Saint Francis Hospital / Reardon sex abuse cases, click here for the article printed in the Hartford Courant.

Unethical Behavior in the Saint Francis Hospital / Reardon Sex Abuse Cases

Many people have been following the recent sexual abuse litigation against Saint Francis Hospital. Prior to his death, Dr. George Reardon, a doctor at Saint Francis Hospital, abused hundreds of children from the 1960s through the 1980s under the guise of a growth study at Saint Francis Hospital in Hartford. This year two of the victims have had their day in court. Stanger & Arnold, LLP represents several of the victims in this matter.

In a ruling issued on August 1, 2011, the court found that the defense lawyers withheld relevant evidence in the Saint Francis Hospital sexual abuse cases. As part of the discovery process the defendants are required to turn over relevant evidence that is requested. What the judge just decided was that in January of 2010 the victims of the sexual abuse had requested the information that was not turned over until just a few months ago. In fact much of it was not turned over to the plaintiffs until after the trial of two of the cases that were completed this year. It was not turned over until after many of the plaintiffs had settled their cases. Sounds like lawyers behaving very badly. It is unclear how much Saint Francis Hospital knew and exactly what part Saint Francis Hospital played in attempting to hide the truth. But it is clear that the court has decided it was wrong and that someone had to pay.

To learn more about the Saint Francis Hospital / Reardon sex abuse cases, click here for the article printed in the Hartford Courant. More about this in upcoming posts.