Opinion ID: 2524356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: the sanderson case

Text: ¶ 60 The OBA alleges that, in 2007, Kandy Sanderson and Respondent entered into a contract for his representation for two worker's compensation claims. The OBA alleges that the parties have conflicting claims disputing the extent of the representation. There is no evidence, including stipulations, which resolves this dispute. The OBA then alleges that Respondent filed a Form 3, the form which initiates a worker's compensation proceeding, on one claim but not on the other. Respondent did not contact the insurance company but directed Sanderson to communicate with the insurance company directly. Between July 3, 2007, and August 1, 2007, while Respondent was hospitalized as discussed below, Sanderson unsuccessfully tried to contact him. On August 2, 2007, Sanderson terminated Respondent's representation of her. Sanderson, acting pro se, settled her claim on September 5, 2007. Respondent filed a lien on the settlement funds and sued Sanderson for $3,616.56, twenty percent of the settlement. Sanderson's lawyer in the civil suit sent Respondent discovery requests but Respondent did not comply with any of the request. ¶ 61 The OBA alleges Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, [35] and 1.16 of the ORPC. In its brief, the OBA posits that these rules were violated because Respondent took no steps to advise his client of his illness or inability to handle her legal affairs and neglected her cases [which she] eventually settled . . . of her own accord. Because we cannot ascertain the extent of Respondent's representation, we cannot determine if he was neglectful before his illness. As to notifying Sanderson of his illness, it appears from the record that Respondent's medical condition would have prevented him from advising her that he would be unable to handle her legal affairs. Based on these facts and the lack of evidence, the OBA has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, or 1.16 of the ORPC. ¶ 62 Rule 1.5 of the 2001 ORPC required a lawyer to charge a reasonable fee and failure to do so could have resulted in discipline under Rule 8.4(a) of the ORPC and Rule 1.3 of the RGDP. In contention with ORPC Rule 1.5 is RGDP Rule 1.4(b) which provides: Controversies as to the amount of fees shall not be considered a basis for charges in a disciplinary proceeding unless it is made to appear that the amount demanded is extortionate or fraudulent. It appears from the record that the civil suit filled by Respondent against Sanderson is still pending. This Court will not interfere in a pending civil suit by finding a fee is unreasonable in a bar disciplinary proceeding.