Opinion ID: 2351773
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: reasons for dismissal of certified questions

Text: In light of events of which this Court was unaware when it accepted the certified questions, we dismiss the certified questions as improvidently granted. When the Court accepted the certified questions, we were not aware that the Governor had signed into law, on July 6, 1995, Senate Bill 212, 70 Del.Laws c. 129, which amended the statute at issue in this proceeding. Thus, answers to the certified questions will probably apply only to the now rare facts of the case sub judice. Therefore, important and urgent reasons no longer justify consideration of the certified questions. Supr.Ct.R. 41(a)(i). Accordingly, we decline to reach the issues raised by the certified questions. Prior to the amendment, effected by Senate Bill 212, Section 2126 of Title 19 provided that fees of attorneys for services under the Workers' Compensation Law, 19 Del.C. § 2101 et seq., shall be subject to the approval of the Board. 19 Del.C. § 2126 (1985). Section 2127 had required the Board to allow, as attorney fees, an amount not to exceed $2,250 and prohibited an attorney from charging the client more than the amount allowed by the Board against the employer. [2] Senate Bill 212 amended Section 2126 to remove any reference to attorneys, and the section now applies only to physicians. 19 Del.C. § 2126 (1995). Section 2127(b) now provides that the amount to be taxed as costs in Section 2127(a) will not be awarded to the claimant if a settlement offer is rejected when that settlement offer is equal to or greater than the amount awarded after a hearing. [3] Senate Bill 212 is not before this Court, and we decline to consider its constitutionality. We note from the synopsis of the Bill that it was introduced out of concern for this Court's sole and exclusive responsibility over all matters affecting governance of the bar, as expressed in Simmons v. Delaware State Hosp., Del.Supr., 660 A.2d 384, 391 n. 4 (1995). [4] Rule 1.5 of the Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, the enforcement of which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Court, regulates the fees which a lawyer may charge a client. The Rule provides in relevant part: (a) A lawyer's fee shall be reasonable. The factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following: (1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyers performing the service; and (8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent. If a lawyer complies with Rule 1.5, the lawyer has met his or her professional obligation to the client with respect to fees. In the case of a failure to comply, only this Court has power to discipline lawyers for violations of The Delaware Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct. [5] In re Appeal of Infotechnology, Inc., Del.Supr., 582 A.2d 215 (1990).