Opinion ID: 2588467
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gary and Mikell Sewell

Text: Gary and Mikell Sewell hired Kagele on May 18, 1995 to bring an action against the contractor who built their home. The Sewell's signed the above fee agreement, specifically stating that Kagele's fee would be $5,000 to ten days prior to trial. Ex. 1A. In May 1995, the Sewell's paid Kagele $5,000. On August 3, 1995, Kagele filed the complaint and summons but at that time did not inform the Sewells of the filing. Kagele named the contractor's bonding company in the lawsuit but did not properly serve the defendant and when informed of the improper service took no action to correct service. In November 1995, the Sewells contacted Kagele about the status of the case, and Kagele informed them that the defendant hired a lawyer and had until November 15, 1995 to answer the complaint. The Sewells contacted Kagele on November 16 to determine the next step, and Kagele told them he would get back to them. He did not. After a May 1996 court date was set, the Sewells continued to contact Kagele every six weeks, but Kagele had no further information. In the spring of 1996, Kagele contacted Chuck Moore to view the damage to the Sewell home. Mr. Moore viewed the home but did not write a report. Kagele also contacted a witness who was asked to be available for trial, as well as an architect but did not contact the witnesses that Mrs. Sewell provided. Kagele never viewed the home himself. In July 1996, Kagele informed the clients that they would not go to trial in August and that November was a more realistic court date. Kagele filed a motion for default on July 23, 1996, and the defendant filed its answer on August 6, 1996. On August 15, 1996, Kagele filed a note for trial and certificate of readiness. Throughout this time, the Sewells would call Kagele to find out the status of their case, and Kagele would inform them that he had nothing to report. When the Sewells received a new trial date of November 20, 1996, Kagele did not inform them, and they learned of the date from the clerk's office. On at least two occasions prior to October 29, the Sewells told Kagele that they wanted a jury trial. Kagele, however, never filed a jury demand and was preparing to go forward with a bench trial. On October 29, the Sewells asked Kagele why he had not filed the jury demand as they requested, and he informed them that they did not need a jury. On October 31, the Sewells wrote to Kagele, terminating his services and requesting the return of their file and the unearned portion of their retainer. The Sewell's new lawyer inventoried the file and could not locate any discovery, notes of conversations or investigations, expert witness or consultation reports, research, or noted correspondence with the Sewells. Kagele explained that the lack of discovery and other trial preparation was a strategic approach. If this was his strategy it was never communicated to the Sewells. Kagele did not return any of the $5,000 retainer to the Sewells because he did not think that his termination was justified, and he did not provide an accounting of his charges. Decision Papers (DP) at 6.