Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 1 of 21

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Jon R. Pactor

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Timothy F. Devereux

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Rene DiBenedetto,

Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.

Timothy Devereux,

Appellee-Defendant

June 23, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A05-1609-CT-2146

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable James A. Joven, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49D13-1310-CT-37987

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] This is another legal malpractice action arising from the theft and deceit 

committed by former attorney William F. Conour (Conour) that led to the 

downfall of Conour Law Firm (the Firm) and victimized many of the Firm’s 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 2 of 21

clients.1 Rene DiBenedetto is one such client. In this case, DiBenedetto filed a 

legal malpractice complaint against Timothy Devereux, an attorney who once 

practiced law with the Firm. DiBenedetto maintains that Devereux committed 

legal malpractice when he failed to accurately and honestly advise her regarding 

distribution of her settlement funds. Devereux filed a motion for summary 

judgment2challenging the merits of DiBenedetto’s legal malpractice claim. 

After a hearing, the trial court granted Devereux’s summary judgment motion. 

DiBenedetto now appeals, arguing that genuine issues of material fact preclude 

entry of summary judgment in favor of Devereux.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] DiBenedetto was severely injured in a head-on collision on April 21, 2010. On 

April 26, 2010, DiBenedetto entered into a contingent-fee contract with the 

Firm. DiBenedetto had a personal connection to Conour and it was Conour 

 

1

For nearly thirteen years, Conour “knowingly devised and participated in a scheme to defraud and to 

obtain money and funds from his clients and others by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, 

representations, and promises.” Devereux v. Love, 30 N.E.3d 754, 757 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (record citation 

omitted), trans. denied (hereinafter, Love). Part of Conour’s scheme was that he would receive settlement 

funds on behalf of some clients and then unlawfully convert such settlement funds to his own use and benefit 

or to make settlement payments to other clients. It was determined that Conour stole, misappropriated, and 

unlawfully converted to his own use more than $4,500,000 belonging to more than 25 clients. On July 15, 

2013, Conour pled guilty in federal court to one count of wire fraud. He was subsequently sentenced to 120 

months in prison and ordered to pay restitution to the client-victims. Id. 

2 This is the second appeal in this case. In the first appeal, this court addressed the limitations clause in the 

attorney-client contract, ultimately affirming the denial of Devereux’s first motion for summary judgment. 

See Devereux v. DiBenedetto, 45 N.E.3d 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 3 of 21

who agreed to handle her case. Devereux was an associate attorney3 with the 

Firm when DiBenedetto entered into the contract, but he was not assigned to 

assist with her case, nor did he perform any work related thereto. 

[4] In July 2010, DiBenedetto received a letter informing her that the Firm was 

being transitioned to the new law firm of Conour Devereux Hammond. This

letter, which is signed by Conour, Devereux, and Jeffrey Hammond, included

the following statements:

We are pleased to introduce you to the new law firm of Conour 

Devereux Hammond which is taking over the cases and business 

of the Conour Law Firm, LLC. Of course, you already know all 

of us because we have been working with you on your case since 

its beginning.

Appellant’s Appendix, Vol. 2 at 23.4 In closing, the letter stated, “We look 

forward to continuing to work with you to the conclusion of your claim. If you 

have any questions or wish to discuss this matter, please call any one of us.” Id. 

Despite the name change, Devereux maintains that he did not have an 

ownership interest in the Firm, was never a signatory on the Firm’s bank 

accounts, and was not provided access to the Firm’s financial records.

 

3 Under the terms of his Associate Attorney Agreement, Devereux agreed to “always exercise his best 

professional judgment on behalf of all clients” and to “comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations and 

the Rules of Professional Conduct in the performance of his duties.” Appellant’s Appendix Vol. 2 at 74.

4 These excerpts are taken from the letter that was sent to James Love. DiBenedetto maintains that she 

received the same letter.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 4 of 21

[5] Ultimately, DiBenedetto’s accident claims were settled without the filing of a 

lawsuit.5 The first settlement for $50,000 was paid by the insurance company 

for the tortfeasor. DiBenedetto signed a Release in Full of All Claims and 

Rights on January 13, 2011, but reserved the right to maintain a claim for 

underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage against her own insurance company. 

[6] During the summer of 2011, DiBenedetto, along with her father, stopped by the 

Firm unannounced to inquire about the disbursement of the January settlement. 

Conour was not in the office, but Devereux, being the only attorney present 

that day, agreed to speak with her. After consulting with the Firm’s paralegal

and reviewing the Firm’s case-management software, Devereux met with 

DiBenedetto regarding the status of her case. Specifically, he acknowledged the 

January settlement and noted that there were medical liens6 and a pending UIM 

claim. Devereux explained that “typically . . . with cases like this” the pending 

UIM claim “had to be settled” before the medical liens could be negotiated and 

that thereafter, the remaining settlement funds, if any, would be distributed to 

her. Id. at 101. He further advised DiBenedetto to follow up with Conour 

concerning distribution of the settlement already received.

 

5

Pursuant to the contract with the Firm, if the matter was resolved prior to the filing of a complaint, the 

attorney fees were to be twenty-five percent of the gross recovery obtained.

6 A Value Code Report dated June 15, 2011 itemizes medical expenses received by the Firm for services 

provided to DiBenedetto as a result of the accident. As of that date, DiBenedetto’s medical expenses totaled

$34,857.12.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 5 of 21

[7] DiBenedetto’s UIM claim was settled in September 2011, and the settlement 

check was dated October 11, 2011. The check was endorsed by someone other 

than DiBenedetto7 and deposited into the Firm’s account on October 12, 2011. 

It was not until six weeks later, on November 29, 2011, that DiBenedetto was 

presented with and signed a release of all claims to finalize the settlement of the 

UIM claim. It is undisputed that Devereux did not participate or assist in the 

settlement of this claim or that he had any knowledge thereof. 

[8] In December 2011, Devereux became concerned about Conour’s business 

practices.8 As a result, he resigned from the Firm on December 22, 2011. 

DiBenedetto never received any funds from the settlement of either of her 

claims. It was later determined that Conour had misappropriated 

DiBenedetto’s settlement funds received from both the tortfeasor settlement and 

the UIM settlement. 

[9] On December 27, 2011, Devereux contacted the Indiana Supreme Court 

Disciplinary Commission to express his concerns about Conour. In January 

2012, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) contacted Devereux concerning 

an investigation regarding Conour’s failure to fund trusts that he described to 

clients as structured annuities. Devereux was not made aware of any other 

 

7 Devereux maintains that he did not endorse the settlement check by signing DiBenedetto’s name. 

8

In December 2011, Devereux became aware that Conour had not promptly remitted attorney fees to a law 

firm that had served as co-counsel on a case and that he had not yet forwarded settlement proceeds to a client 

in a wrongful death action after disbursement had been approved by the probate court. Devereux also 

became aware of inaccurate statements Conour made in a report to a financing company used by the Firm. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 6 of 21

potential wrongdoing on behalf of Conour. Conour was criminally charged in 

federal court on April 27, 2012, and later pled guilty to one count of wire fraud.

[10] On October 11, 2013, DiBenedetto filed a complaint against Devereux for legal 

malpractice, alleging that Devereux was negligent, breached his fiduciary 

duties, and breached his contractual obligations by not providing her with 

accurate information when she inquired about disbursement of her settlement 

funds during the summer of 2011. On March 23, 2016, Devereux filed the 

instant motion for summary judgment, arguing that, as a matter of law he did 

not breach any duty he owed to DiBenedetto. The trial court held a hearing on 

July 11, 2016. On September 2, 2016, the trial court entered an order granting 

summary judgment in favor of Devereux. The trial court made no findings of 

fact and did not set forth the basis for its decision. DiBenedetto now appeals. 

Additional facts will be provided as necessary. 

Discussion & Decision

[11] DiBenedetto argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in 

favor of Devereux. We review an order granting summary judgment de novo. 

Adams v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., 48 N.E.3d 1, 9 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Summary 

judgment is appropriate if, after reviewing the designated evidence, “there is no 

genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a 

judgment as a matter of law.” Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). A fact is material if its 

resolution would affect the outcome of the case, and an issue is genuine if a trier 

of fact is required to resolve the parties’ differing accounts of the truth, or if the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 7 of 21

undisputed material facts support conflicting reasonable inferences. Williams v. 

Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756, 761 (Ind. 2009). When the trial court has granted 

summary judgment, the nonmoving party has the burden on appeal of 

persuading us that the grant of summary judgment was in error. Adams, 48 

N.E.3d at 9.

[12] “Under Indiana Law, the elements of legal malpractice are: (1) employment of 

an attorney, which creates a duty to the client; (2) failure of the attorney to 

exercise ordinary skill and knowledge (breach of the duty); and (3) that such 

negligence was the proximate cause of (4) damage to the plaintiff.” Van Kirk v. 

Miller, 869 N.E.2d 534, 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Clary v. Lite Machines 

Corp., 850 N.E.2d 423, 430 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)), trans. denied. “A defendant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the undisputed material facts 

negate at least one element of the plaintiff’s claim.” Clary, 850 N.E.2d at 430. 

[13] “Adequate communication and integrity when dealing with clients is a vital 

component of any attorney-client relationship.” Matter of Levy, 726 N.E.2d 

1257, 1259 (Ind. 2000). It therefore goes without saying that Devereux owed 

DiBenedetto a duty to provide her with truthful, accurate, and non-misleading 

information when he met with her during the summer of 2011. See Ind. 

Professional Conduct Rule 1.4(a)(2) (requiring attorneys to “reasonably consult 

with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be 

accomplished”); Prof. Cond. R. 1.4(b) (noting that attorneys are to “explain a 

matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 8 of 21

decisions regarding the representation”). We conclude as a matter of law, 

however, that given the circumstances, Devereux did not breach this duty.

[14] Whether a particular act or omission amounts to a breach of an attorney’s duty 

is generally a question of fact for the jury. Oxley v. Lenn, 819 N.E.2d 851, 856 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2004). However, breach can become a question of law where the 

facts are undisputed and only a single inference can be drawn therefrom. Id.

[15] DiBenedetto argues that Devereux breached his duty to provide her with 

truthful and accurate information. She asserts:

[Devereux] never corrected or supplemented the advice that he 

gave. For example, he knew that Conour had not “promptly” 

distributed any of the money from the first settlement and had 

not “promptly” notified any health care provider or subrogee of 

the settlement. He knew or should have known that there was no 

legal obligation for her to wait for the completion of the 

underinsurance claim before money could be distributed. He 

knew that nothing had been distributed from either settlement 

when he left the firm in December 2011. Even at that time, he 

said nothing to her about problems with the handling of her 

money.

Appellant’s Brief at 23-24. DiBenedetto designated an affidavit of an attorney, 

who opined that Devereux “inaccurately represented that there was no reason 

for concern” when DiBenedetto inquired as to why her settlement had not been 

distributed six months after she settled the claim with the tortfeasor’s insurance 

company. Appellant’s Appendix, Vol. 3 at 123. In the attorney’s opinion, 

Devereux should have taken some actions to protect DiBenedetto by 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 9 of 21

investigating further and advising her that she may not want to wait for 

distribution of the settlement that had already been received. 

[16] Devereux argues that he provided DiBenedetto with accurate information and 

further advised DiBenedetto to consult with Conour directly regarding the 

disbursement of her settlement. He also asserts that the crux of DiBenedetto’s 

claim is that he “knew or should have known that CONOUR was mishandling 

[her] settlement proceeds” and should have so informed her when he met with

her during the summer of 2011. Appellee’s Appendix at 21. Devereux directs us 

to Love and argues that the same result obtains.

[17] The underlying claim in Love arose out of the same type of deceit and 

wrongdoing by Conour that precipitated the instant action. In August 2008, 

shortly after Devereux joined the Firm, the Loves hired the Firm to represent 

them in a personal-injury action. Devereux was subsequently assigned, by 

Conour, to work on the Loves’ case and he was also identified as an attorney of 

record to the court. When Devereux terminated his employment with the Firm 

in December 2011, he informed the Loves generally of his departure and the 

Loves signed a form indicating their desire that Conour and the Firm continue 

to represent them. 

[18] After the Loves discovered Conour’s misconduct, they filed a complaint against 

Devereux for legal malpractice, alleging that he failed to warn them of Conour’s 

potential wrongdoing. The trial court denied Devereux’s motion for summary 

judgment and Devereux appealed. In considering whether Devereux breached 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 10 of 21

his duty to exercise ordinary skill and knowledge in relation to his 

representation of the Loves, this court was careful not to consider the matter 

“through the lens of hindsight,” but rather focused on what Devereux knew at 

the time he was alleged to have committed malpractice by failing to warn the 

Loves of Conour’s potential wrongdoing. Love, 30 N.E.3d at 764. 

[19] The designated evidence revealed to the court that while Devereux had 

concerns about Conour’s actions relating to operation of the Firm, such 

suspicions related only to poor business practices. The court further noted that 

the designated evidence also supported Devereux’s assertion that he did not 

have any specific knowledge of wrongdoing by Conour relating to the Loves, 

the mishandling of any active cases, or any wrongdoing other than delaying 

payments. This court concluded:

[t]he designated evidence outlining Devereux’s knowledge at the 

time he terminated his employment from the Firm is insufficient 

to create an issue of material fact with regards to whether 

Devereux knew, or even should have known, that Conour would 

breach the trust instilled in him by his clients by stealing client 

funds.

Love, 30 N.E.3d at 765. Thus, this court held that Devereux’s decision to not 

discuss his concerns with the Loves did not amount to a breach of duty to warn 

the Loves of Conour’s potential wrongdoing. This court therefore reversed the 

trial court’s determination and remanded with instructions that the trial court 

enter summary judgment in favor of Devereux.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 11 of 21

[20] Like the Loves, DiBenedetto was also victimized by Conour and is seeking 

redress from Devereux. Devereux asserts that despite the factual differences 

between the Loves’ scenario and the instant action, this court’s analysis in Love

as to whether he breached a duty owed to DiBenedetto is applicable. He 

maintains that his designated evidence, which is virtually identical to the 

evidence relating to his knowledge that was designated in Love, shows that he 

was not aware of Conour’s wrongdoing at the time he consulted with 

DiBenedetto about the distribution of her settlement proceeds. Devereux 

further emphasizes that he was never assigned to work on DiBenedetto’s case, 

that he did not perform any work on DiBenedetto’s case, and that he spoke 

with her on only one occasion when he explained to her the status of her case as 

outlined in the Firm’s case management system. Based on these facts, 

Devereux asserts that he did not breach any duty owed to DiBenedetto and 

thus, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in his favor. 

[21] DiBenedetto points to factual differences in arguing that Love is inapposite to 

this case. Specifically, DiBenedetto notes that Conour settled the Loves’ claim 

without their permission and stole their money months after Devereux left the 

firm while both of her claims were settled with her knowledge and prior to 

Devereux’s departure. DiBenedetto asserts that “the most critical distinction” 

is that, unlike the Loves, she “sought information directly from [Devereux] 

about why her settlement in January 2011 had not been distributed.” 

Appellant’s Brief at 18. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 12 of 21

[22] Our analysis focuses on the meeting between DiBenedetto and Devereux 

during the summer of 2011. DiBenedetto stopped by the Firm unannounced. 

It just so happened that Conour was not in the office that day, but Devereux 

was. Even though Devereux knew nothing about DiBenedetto’s case, he took a 

few minutes to confer with the Firm’s paralegal and review the Firm’s case 

management summary with respect to her case. Devereux then met with 

DiBenedetto and informed her about the status of her case—confirming the 

settlement of the tortfeasor claim and also noting that there were several 

outstanding medical bills/liens and a pending UIM claim. There is no dispute 

that the information Devereux provided was accurate. 

[23] To the extent Devereux advised that the UIM claim “had to be settled” before 

the money would be distributed, we conclude that such does not support a 

determination that Devereux breached his duty to provide DiBenedetto with 

accurate information or breached his duty to exercise ordinary skill and 

knowledge. Appellant’s Appendix Vol. 2 at 101. Devereux acknowledges that he 

told DiBenedetto that “typically” in cases such as hers, all claims “had to be 

settled” before the medical liens would be negotiated and that only thereafter 

would the remaining settlement funds, if any, be disbursed to her. In support of 

his position, Devereux designated evidence in the form of an attorney affidavit 

that “[i]t is common practice that medical bills or liens are frequently not 

resolved with the payment of limits by the underlying tortfeasor’s carrier, 

particularly if the bills or liens are a significant portion of the underlying 

tortfeasor’s settlement.” Appellant’s Appendix Vol. 3 at 99. Given that at the time 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 13 of 21

Devereux had no reason to suspect any wrongdoing by Conour with regard to 

DiBenedetto’s settlement funds, his advice in this regard was not inaccurate or 

necessarily misleading.

[24] DiBenedetto’s designated evidence does not contradict Devereux’s designated 

evidence to the effect that it is common practice to wait until all claims are 

settled before a settlement is disbursed. DiBenedetto’s expert simply opines that 

Devereux “knew or should have known,” Id. at 121, that something was amiss 

because Conour had not “promptly” disbursed the settlement funds to cover 

medical liens and paid the balance to DiBenedetto pursuant to Prof. Cond. R. 

1.15(d).9 DiBenedetto’s expert opines that Devereux breached his duty by 

failing to advise DiBenedetto that there was sufficient money to pay her health 

care providers and resolve any liens and as a result, the money in the trust 

account “should have delivered promptly.” Appellant’s Appendix Vol. 2 at 121. 

In reaching this opinion, however, the expert had to make certain assumptions, 

such as, that the Firm’s records were complete, that all medical bills had been 

received, and/or that the UIM claim would be settled prior to the filing of a 

complaint. Devereux’s duty was to provide DiBenedetto with accurate 

 

9

 Prof. Cond. R. 1.15(d) provides:

Upon receiving funds or other property in which the client or third person has an interest, a 

lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this rule or otherwise 

permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or 

third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, 

upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such 

property.

(Emphasis supplied). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 14 of 21

information and he did just that. To the extent the information Devereux 

provided DiBenedetto did not satisfactorily answer her question regarding the 

distribution of the first settlement proceeds, Devereux advised her to speak 

directly with Conour, who had been responsible for the case since the 

beginning.

[25] DiBenedetto’s argument that Devereux knew or should have known that 

something was amiss when he reviewed her case file is based on a view of the 

facts as they existed at the time of her meeting with Devereux through the lens 

of hindsight. Now armed with the knowledge that Conour misappropriated her 

settlements, she seeks to reach back in time and blame Devereux for not 

knowing that her settlement funds had not been properly safeguarded. At that 

time, Devereux had gathered basic information about DiBenedetto’s case as 

reflected in the Firm’s records and provided that information to her. 

[26] With regard to Devereux’s explanation to DiBenedetto that she would have to 

wait until her UIM claim was settled, such was consistent with what Devereux

considered common practice and as such, the fact that the settlement had yet to 

be distributed did not raise any red flags. We further note that to the extent 

there were questions beyond the overview of information about DiBenedetto’s 

case contained in the Firm’s records, Devereux advised DiBenedetto to speak 

directly with Conour as he was the only one who had worked on her case and 

knew the details thereof. Under the facts of this case, we conclude as a matter 

of law that Devereux did not breach his duty to exercise ordinary skill and 

knowledge or to provide DiBenedetto with accurate and non-misleading 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 15 of 21

information. Having concluded that the designated evidence establishes that 

Devereux did not breach any duty owed to DiBenedetto, we affirm the trial 

court’s grant of summary judgment in favor Devereux.

Attorney Fees

[27] Devereux requests an award of attorney fees and other sanctions pursuant to 

Ind. Appellate Rule 66, which provides:

G. Damages for Frivolous or Bad Faith Filings. The Court 

may assess damages if an appeal, petition, or motion, or 

response, is frivolous or in bad faith. Damages shall be in the 

Court’s discretion and may include attorneys’ fees. The Court 

shall remand the case for execution.

[28] Devereux asserts that the dispositive issue – his knowledge of Conour’s 

wrongdoing – was previously decided by this court in Love and notes that no 

new evidence was presented in this case that would have any effect on that 

holding. Devereux further asserts that DiBenedetto even resorted to scandalous 

accusations by alleging in her complaint that he “effectively and knowingly 

assisted . . . Conour to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.” Appellant’s 

Appendix, Vol. II at 17. Devereux maintains that attorney fees are warranted 

given that DiBenedetto persisted in asserting a baseless position, forcing him to 

once again defend himself against an issue already decided in Love. 

[29] As the above discussion illustrates, the Love decision was not entirely dispositive 

of the issue in this case in light of the different factual circumstances. We 

therefore do not find that the appeal was frivolous or brought in bad faith. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 16 of 21

Moreover, we conclude that the challenged averment is not so scandalous that 

it supports an award of attorney fees. Devereux’s request is denied.

[30] Judgment affirmed.

[31] Riley, J., concurs.

[32] Crone, J., dissents with opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 17 of 21

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Rene DiBenedetto,

Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.

Timothy Devereux,

Appellee-Defendant

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A05-1609-CT-2146

Crone, Judge, dissenting.

[33] I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmance of summary judgment in 

Devereux’s favor. The majority assumes, without deciding, that an attorneyclient relationship existed between Devereux and DiBenedetto, who had dealt 

solely with Conour until the summer of 2011. I agree with this assumption, but 

it is important to note that “[c]reation of an attorney-client relationship is not 

dependent upon the formal signing of an employment agreement or upon the 

payment of attorney fees. An attorney-client relationship need not be express, 

but may be implied by the conduct of the parties.” Matter of Anonymous, 655 

N.E.2d 67, 70 (Ind. 1995). “Attorney-client relationships have been implied 

where a person seeks advice or assistance from an attorney, where the advice 

sought pertains to matters within the attorney’s professional competence, and 

where the attorney gives the desired advice or assistance.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 18 of 21

[34] The designated evidence most favorable to DiBenedetto as the nonmoving 

party establishes that in July 2010, Devereux, Conour, and Hammond signed a 

letter to DiBenedetto on the Firm’s letterhead that stated, “[W]e are continuing 

to represent you as your attorneys[,]” and, “We look forward to continuing to 

work with you to the conclusion of your claim. If you have any questions or 

wish to discuss this matter, please call any one of us.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 

at 65. According to DiBenedetto’s affidavit, sometime after she received that 

letter, Conour told her “that all of the attorneys would be working on [her] 

case.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 3 at 29 (emphasis added). When DiBenedetto 

visited the Firm in the summer of 2011 to ask about “the settlement of [her] 

case” and “when [she] would be receiving payments[,]” Devereux “did not tell 

[her] that he was only an employee or that [she] could not rely on him.” Id. at 

30, 29. In response to DiBenedetto’s inquiry, Devereux told her that she 

“would not be receiving money until the liens had been taken care of.” Id. at 

30. At the very least, this evidence is sufficient to create a genuine issue of 

material fact as to whether an attorney-client relationship existed between 

Devereux and DiBenedetto.

[35] As DiBenedetto’s attorney, Devereux owed her a general duty to exercise 

ordinary skill and knowledge. In re Estate of Lee, 954 N.E.2d 1042, 1047 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied (2012). And, as the majority acknowledges, it 

“goes without saying” that he owed her “a duty to provide her with truthful, 

accurate, and non-misleading information when he met with her during the 

summer of 2011.” Slip op. at 7 (citing Ind. Professional Conduct Rules 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 19 of 21

1.4(a)(2) and 1.4(b)). The majority concludes as a matter of law that Devereux 

did not breach this duty. I respectfully disagree.

[36] In support of her response to Devereux’s summary judgment motion, 

DiBenedetto submitted the affidavit of an experienced practicing attorney who 

opined that Devereux breached the applicable standard of care, based in part on 

his belief that Devereux knew or should have known that Conour had not 

complied with Professional Conduct Rule 1.15(d) and that Devereux should 

have advised DiBenedetto accordingly. Rule 1.15(d) states,

Upon receiving funds or other property in which the client or 

third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the 

client or third person. Except as stated in this rule or otherwise 

permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall 

promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other 

property that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, 

upon request by the client or third person, shall promptly render 

a full accounting regarding such property.

(Emphasis added.)

[37] During his meeting with DiBenedetto, Devereux became aware that the 

$50,000 settlement check from the tortfeasor had been deposited in Conour’s 

trust account at least five months earlier and that DiBenedetto’s bills for 

medical services (the last of which had been rendered at least six months earlier) 

totaled less than $35,000. Thus, Devereux also became aware that Conour had 

not promptly delivered to DiBenedetto any funds that she was entitled to 

receive. See Matter of Helmer, 634 N.E.2d 56, 56 (Ind. 1994) (finding that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 20 of 21

attorney violated Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 1.15 by waiting three months 

to deliver client’s portion of settlement funds). In his deposition, Devereux 

testified that he told DiBenedetto and her father that “they would have to ask 

Mr. Conour” about “when they would be getting payments” and “explained 

typically what happened with cases like this if there were medical liens, both 

cases had to be settled, the underlying lawsuit and the UIM claim, and then the 

medical bill liens had to be resolved” and that “generally, that’s how the system 

works.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 101. Another experienced practicing 

attorney who submitted an affidavit in support of Devereux’s summary 

judgment motion took a similar position. Appellant’s App. Vol. 3 at 99. 

Simply because attorneys “generally” handle certain cases in a certain way does 

not mean that the procedure always complies with the Professional Conduct

Rules adopted by our state’s highest court.

[38] At oral argument, Devereux conceded that a minimum of $10,000 of the 

$50,000 settlement was unencumbered by any potential medical liens or 

attorney fees, that there was no legal impediment to distributing that amount to 

DiBenedetto at that time, and that he did not advise her that she had a present 

right to receive those funds. See Oral Arg. at 22:29-24:21.

10

 Had he done so, 

DiBenedetto could have asked for and received the funds from Conour, or she 

might have been put on notice that something sinister was afoot and terminated 

 

10 Devereux also conceded that any subsequent reduction of the medical bills via negotiations with health 

care providers could only have resulted in a larger recovery for DiBenedetto. See Oral Arg. at 23:03-23:15.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1609-CT-2146 | June 23, 2017 Page 21 of 21

her relationship with Conour. It is important to remember that her funds were 

still in Conour’s trust account at that time.

[39] Personal injury plaintiffs are often strapped for cash and hounded by creditors

while they wait for their cases to be resolved. They are also often unfamiliar 

with the ins and outs of negotiations and settlements and the professional 

responsibilities of the attorneys who are legally and ethically obligated to 

protect their interests. Consequently, it is imperative for attorneys to comply 

with Professional Conduct Rule 1.15(d) and either promptly distribute funds to 

which their clients are indisputably entitled or, at a minimum, advise them of 

their right to receive those funds. Based on the evidence most favorable to 

DiBenedetto as the nonmoving party, I believe that genuine issues of material 

fact exist regarding whether Devereux breached his duty to provide 

DiBenedetto with truthful, accurate, and non-misleading information regarding 

Conour’s handling of the tortfeasor’s settlement funds and her present right to 

receive those funds, as well as whether any breach proximately caused her 

alleged damages relating to those funds.

11

 Therefore, I would reverse the trial 

court’s grant of summary judgment in Devereux’s favor, remand for trial, and 

deny Devereux’s request for attorney fees. 

 

11 Because there is no evidence that Devereux had any further involvement with DiBenedetto or had any 

knowledge of Conour’s subsequent settlement of her UIM claim, I do not believe that he may be considered a 

proximate cause of her failure to receive those funds.