Opinion ID: 1441114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Board's Factual Findings

Text: While we generally accept the Board's findings of fact, our review discloses one finding that is clearly not supported by substantial evidence, and which we therefore reject. In its Report, the Board states, Respondent testified that he mistakenly believed that [the Siepser matter] was governed by the new billing policy, not the old, and that he was therefore entitled to charge a premium based on the favorable results. A review of the respondent's testimony reveals that he did not provide such testimony. The testimony that the Board cited in support of its finding was obtained on direct examination of the respondent, who first confirmed that he was familiar with the materials that McDermott had provided to its attorneys regarding the new billing policy. His counsel then asked, And in your view, with respect to the bill sent to Dr. Siepser on November 17, 1994, during the course of the test period, did the factors on which you relied comply or comport with that brochure? The respondent answered, I thought so. In fact, nowhere in his testimony did the respondent state that at the time he billed Dr. Siepser he believed that Dr. Siepser's legal matter was governed by the new billing policy. Although the respondent testified that he believed his bill comported with that policy, there is no evidence in the record that at the time he worked on Dr. Siepser's bill he had formed an opinion as to which engagement letter controlled that matter. Indeed, when his counsel asked him what focus he had placed on the engagement letter when he prepared the bill, the respondent replied, I don't recall focusing on it. Thus, contrary to the Board's finding, the record does not reflect that, at the time he prepared the Siepser bill, the respondent believed that the new billing policy governed the matter. At best it demonstrates that he thought Dr. Siepser's bill complied with the new engagement letter, but, by his own testimony, he has no recollection of focusing on the issue of whether or not the new terms of engagement allowing premium billing applied to that client. It is under these facts, in combination with those summarized above, that we review the issue of whether the respondent violated Rule 8.4(c).