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 When something changes and the original fee agreement is no longer applicable, can the fee agreement be modified?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need to modify the fee agreement and the client agreed to it, a fee agreement can be modified if the original one is no longer applicable.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.

Complaint Against Judge Leads to Additional Litigation

In 2010, a Texas state court judge filed suit against a well known plaintiff’s attorney. The judge’s complaint included allegations of defamation and extortion. This complaint stemmed from a long standing issue between the judge and attorney. The attorney originally filed a petition with the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct which the judge alleges was solely an attempt to diminish the judge’s changes of re-election. The attorney’s petition claimed the judge belittled, berated and ridiculed his colleagues to the public as well as to other judges. Additionally, after pre-suit discovery was conducted, the judge alleged the attorney based his petition on events reported to him by other sources, rather than based on firsthand knowledge.

After filing the petition, the attorney did not act on it until a few weeks before the filing deadline for judicial candidates, at which time the attorney gave copies of the complaint to several media sources. But it did not end there. The attorney also e-mailed a copy of the complaint to over 100 members of the local American Board of Trial Advocates. The question remains whether the attorney filed the complaint was acting in good faith and had knowledge of the judicial misconduct he is asserting or whether he was acting with reckless disregard for the truth of the information he received in violation of Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2. The case is continuing. It is not only clients that are critical of judges and lawyers. Lawyers and judges sometimes point their fingers at each other. Who is correct does not matter. What does matter is that if you have been injured because someone acted improperly you should consider having a lawyer review your situation.

Contact our office to discuss your potential legal malpractice claim.

Attorney May be on the Hook for Improper Notary Practice

In many states attorneys receive a notary commission without having to pass an examination. While notarizing a document is often something that is viewed as more of an administrative task, attorneys who engage in sloppy notary practice may find themselves facing disciplinary action or other liability. It is easy to view notarizing a document as simply a formality, but each affidavit or verification is a sworn legal document and notarizing same could have serious implications for the signer, notary and the lawyer who prepared the document.

If an attorney pressures an employee to notarize a document improperly, she may be violating the rules of professional conduct. While it may not seem like common practice, it is happening more often that one might expect. For example, a senior partner in a large firm asks a young associate to notarize a document in a large case, however, the document was signed prior to the young associate’s involvement. The young associate notarizes or asks a paralegal to notarize the document. In determining whether the young associate has engaged in improper notary practice it is necessary to consult the law of the state. In some states notaries must verify that the document was signed in his or her presence. In other states it is the simple matter of verifying the signature even if there was no personal appearance.

In an effort to adhere to the rules of professional conduct, the young associate’s best bet in this type of situation would be to draft a new document for the person to sign in the presence of the notary. Contact our office to discuss your potential legal malpractice claim.

New Report of an Increase in Legal Malpractice Claims

The AmLaw Daily recently published an article noting an increase in legal malpractice claims between 2010 and 2011 as a result of the state of the economy and the real estate market. Real estate practices were cited as the most likely to be sued due to conflicts of interest and failure to file timely as the main basis’s for claims. The survey polled six insurance companies who provide legal malpractice insurance coverage to approximately seventy-five percent of large and midsized law firms in the United States. One insurance company surveyed noted an 11 to 20 percent increase in claims within the first six months of 2011. One company noted it’s claims rate had increased by 20%, three companies said their claims rates increased by 6 to 10 percent, and the remaining two said their claims rates have remained stable.

It is anticipated, according to the article, that once the real estate market rebounds, the claims of legal malpractice against real estate firms should level back to where they were. During the recession, another publication published an article after consulting with several lawyers, who predicted that law firms could expect to see a rise in legal malpractice suits due to clients being more inclined to seek ways of recouping some of their losses in revenue from other sources, specifically, litigation. To read the article in its entirety, click here.