Opinion ID: 2449627
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Henriod Complaint

Text: ¶ 17 The third complaint filed against Mr. Long stemmed from a letter filed by Judge Stephen L. Henriod, alleging that Mr. Long charged several clients unreasonable fees for the services he performed (the Henriod Matter). In his letter to the OPC, Judge Henriod stated that he believed that Mr. Long charged two clientsAnnallicia Vantreese and Jose Luis Perez-Hernandezunreasonable fees by performing insubstantial work before withdrawing from each case. [12] Because Judge Henriod did not notarize his letter, the OPC proceeded with its investigation as the official complainant. [13] ¶ 18 Ms. Vantreese signed a flat fee agreement with Mr. Long for legal services related to a charge of possession with intent to distribute, a second degree felony. The flat fee agreement, which identified Mr. Long's firm as L. Long Lawyers, provided that Ms. Vantreese would pay Mr. Long $8,910 for his services up to and including the pre-trial conference or preliminary hearing and subsequent sentencing upon entry of a plea. The docket in Ms. Vantreese's case indicated that Mr. Long appeared at two pretrial conferences, during which he requested continuances. After these continuances, Ms. Vantreese was accepted into drug court. Mr. Long subsequently appeared at another pretrial conference and requested another continuance. After this continuance, Mr. Long appeared at a pretrial hearing, a drug court conference, and a plea hearing, where Ms. Vantreese pleaded guilty. Mr. Long did not appear at any subsequent drug court hearings, and Ms. Vantreese's case was dismissed when she completed drug court. Ms. Vantreese paid Mr. Long $8,900 for his legal services. ¶ 19 Mr. Perez-Hernandez signed a flat fee agreement with Mr. Long for legal services related to two drug charges. The flat fee agreement provided that Mr. Perez-Hernandez would pay Mr. Long $10,000 for legal services up to and including the pre-trial conference or preliminary hearing and subsequent sentencing upon entry of a plea. In Mr. Perez-Hernandez's case, Mr. Long made an initial appearance; appeared at a roll-call; filed an appearance of counsel, a request for discovery, and a motion to preserve evidence; informed the court that Mr. Perez-Hernandez had been accepted into drug court; and appeared at two change of plea hearings. Mr. Long did not appear at any subsequent drug court hearings. Mr. Long collected $7,750 from Mr. Perez-Hernandez for these legal services. ¶ 20 Because Judge Henriod was concerned that Mr. Long's fees in these matters were unreasonable, he sent his letter to the OPC. The OPC mailed Mr. Long a Notice of Informal Complaint and provided Mr. Long with an opportunity to respond to the allegations of misconduct. After Mr. Long provided a response, the OPC conducted a preliminary investigation and provided Mr. Long with a copy of its findings. The OPC found that Mr. Long's actions violated the rules of professional conduct and referred the Henriod Matter to the Committee. The Screening Panel held a hearing at which Mr. Long testified and presented evidence. ¶ 21 At the hearing, Mr. Long testified that he had performed additional work for Ms. Vantreese and Mr. Perez-Hernandez that was not reflected in the court dockets. In support, Mr. Long provided the Screening Panel with a narrative accounting of the work he performed in both cases. This accounting was created after the OPC complaint was initiated and consisted of Mr. Long's thoughts and recollection of his work on each case. According to the narrative accounting, Mr. Long performed forty-five hours of work for Ms. Vantreese and fifty to sixty hours of work for Mr. Perez-Hernandez. Mr. Long also submitted an affidavit by another attorney stating that Mr. Long's fees were consistent with other attorney fees for cases in which similar charges had been filed. At the hearing, Mr. Long conceded that although he used the name L. Long Lawyers on his flat fee agreements, he was a solo practitioner at all relevant times in this case. ¶ 22 Based on this evidence, the Screening Panel concluded that Mr. Long's actions violated rules 1.5(a), 7.1, 7.5(d), and 8.4(a) of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. The Screening Panel recommended that Mr. Long receive a public reprimand. Mr. Long filed an exception to the Committee Chair, arguing that the Screening Panel's recommendation was not supported by substantial evidence and that its findings of fact were insufficient to support its conclusions. The Committee Chair held a hearing at which Mr. Long presented evidence. The Committee Chair rejected Mr. Long's arguments, upheld the Screening Panel's recommendation, and imposed the sanction of a public reprimand. ¶ 23 Mr. Long now challenges the Committee's actions to this court. [14] We have authority to hear this challenge pursuant to article VIII, section 4 of the Utah Constitution. [15]