Opinion ID: 1294866
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: client six

Text: ¶ 55. Count 16 alleged a violation of SCR 20:1.5(b) [13] (the basis/rate of fees shall be communicated to the client within a reasonable time after commencing representation). Count 17 alleged another violation of SCR 20:1.4(a) (the client shall be reasonably informed about the status of a matter). ¶ 56. These counts arise out of Attorney Jacobson's representation of a married couple on several occasions before 1996 when they came to him over a dispute involving construction of a home. He asked for a $4000 retainer. An initial payment of $1000 was made for which he spent six to ten hours reviewing construction documents to see if there was a basis for suit. A second $1000 was sent to him six months later, in mid-1997. ¶ 57. The clients claimed that the initial $1000 was to cover court costs and filing fees to actually commence the lawsuit. However, they had no specific recollection of having discussed the exact nature of the fee and have no records to this effect. ¶ 58. Attorney Jacobson testified that he did not recall exactly whether this would be a flat fee or on an hourly basis but admitted there was no written retainer agreement. He conceded that his file on the matter was not availableI have no idea where it is. ¶ 59. The clients also claimed that in mid-1998 they asked for a copy of the demand letter that Attorney Jacobson supposedly had previously sent to the builder. He admitted that he never sent them a copy. ¶ 60. The clients further claimed that in mid-1998 they first requested an itemized statement of services. This was followed by an early 1999 demand to the same effect which accompanied a notice terminating Attorney Jacobson's service and a request for a return of any of the unused $2000. This was followed by a third request for an itemized statement and a return of unused money a few months later in 1999. A fourth such request was made in late 1999. Attorney Jacobson stated in a letter after the fourth request, at a time when he knew the clients had already filed a grievance, that he would soon send an itemized statement, but he never did so. ¶ 61. The referee concluded there had been a violation of both counts. She held that Attorney Jacobson should have discussed the nature of the fee agreement with the clients given that the fee basis was apparently going to be different than when he had done prior legal work for them. She also noted that Attorney Jacobson never explained why he told the clients to bring in $4000 nor did he ever inform them how the $2000 that they did pay was being used. Finally, the referee concluded Attorney Jacobson had clearly failed to respond to the clients' numerous requests for an itemized statement and return of any unused funds. ¶ 62. Attorney Jacobson claims that because neither he nor the clients can recall whether there was a discussion of the basis for a fee, there was insufficient proof that he did not explain the fee and thus Count 16 is not proven. [14] ¶ 63. Attorney Jacobson concedes there is sufficient evidence that he failed to provide the clients with the demand letter he had sent to the builder, and thus Count 17 was proven. However, he claims he could not provide them with a billing statement because he had already turned over his file to them which contained the notes he would have needed to prepare a bill. ¶ 64. The OLR argues in response that simply because neither side can recall whether the basis for the fee was discussed, Attorney Jacobson cannot validly claim that he communicated the fee basis as the rule requires. The OLR emphasizes that Attorney Jacobson admitted there was no written fee agreement and contends that therefore communication was inadequate. ¶ 65. The OLR further indicates that in late 1999 Attorney Jacobson admits having sent the clients a letter indicating that an itemized bill would soon be sent, without any hint that he did not have access to billing information. Further, the OLR notes that when Attorney Jacobson says he turned over the file to the clients in late 1999, he had already previously received several requests for billing information. Finally, the OLR states there is nothing in the record from the clients indicating that they indeed ever received the file. ¶ 66. We adopt the referee's findings and conclusions with respect to these counts. ¶ 67. The absence of a written fee agreement or any recollection by either side that the fees had otherwise been discussed supports the conclusion that Attorney Jacobson failed in his duty under the supreme court rule to communicate the basis/rate for the fee. ¶ 68. Attorney Jacobson concedes he never forwarded to the clients a copy of the demand letter. But his attempt to dismiss the failure to furnish a bill is not supported by the findings. Attorney Jacobson stated in the late 1999 letterwell after the clients' initial request for a billthat he would furnish one, yet he did not do so. There was no evidence that he asked for return of the file, assuming it was ever sent to the clients, as a necessary step to prepare the bill.