Opinion ID: 2257566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Exceeding the Flat Fee Charged

Text: According to Respondent, the hearing court erred when it found that Respondent violated Rule 1.5 by attempting to bill and collect $5,585.00 from Mr. Jenkins after the Respondent agreed to represent Mr. Jenkins for a flat fee of $5000.00. Respondent argues that Mr. Jenkins testified that he did not believe that he owed an additional $585.00 and did not intend to pay more than the flat fee. Respondent testified at the hearing that he did not try to enforce the collection of any fee in excess of $5,000.00. The hearing court found that the Respondent's retainer agreement stated that he would represent Mr. Jenkins for $5,000.00, a flat fee. In reviewing the agreement, and as stated earlier, supra, Judge Heard concluded that in Respondent's attempt to collect $585.00, he violated MRPC 1.5, which states that attorney fees must be reasonable. According to the hearing court, Respondent attempted to collect the additional amount as payment for securing Mr. Jenkin'[s] release from jail and preparation for the case. This $585.00 exceeded the fixed fee previously agreed upon by Respondent and Mr. Jenkins. The hearing court concluded by the clear and convincing evidence standard that, the $585.00 was an improper additional fee charged to the client and thereby, [Respondent] violat[ed] MRPC Rule 1.5. The evidence relied upon by the hearing judge included both the agreement signed by both Mr. Jenkins and Respondent and an itemized bill. The Agreement, dated August 6, 2003, clearly stated that [c]lient agrees to pay Attorney . . . $5,000.00 . . . and [t]his fee constitutes a flat fee for representation, regardless of the nature and extent of services contemplated or rendered, or the amount of time actually expended by Attorney. The accounting of charges dated September 10, 2003, by Respondent for Mr. Jenkins's criminal defense outlines various charges for the time expended. At the bottom of the page it states Attorney's Fee $5,585.00. The last line states, Total Balance Due $585.00. We disagree with Respondent that the hearing judge misconstrued the evidence on the record. The agreement clearly stated that a flat fee of $5,000.00 would be assessed. The bill for services stated that a balance of $5,585.00 was Respondent's fee, and, thus, $585.00 was due. Mr. Jenkins testimony that he did not intend to pay the additional fee is not dispositive. Therefore, we overrule Respondent's exception to the hearing judge's findings of facts and conclusions of law.