Opinion ID: 2188622
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: counts ii(b) & (c)

Text: These related counts arise out of respondent's representation of Katrina Yurenka in Sacks v. Yurenka, a parentage case, in which custody and visitation were contested. Respondent was retained in May of 1987 with a $500 retainer and an agreed rate of compensation of $50 per hour. Shortly thereafter, the rate was reduced to $25 per hour because of Ms. Yurenka's financial difficulties. There was no discussion of whether the client was to receive a detailed, itemized bill from respondent, although the committee found that an attorney practicing in Vermont should maintain records adequate so that, upon request, a client may promptly be provided with a detailed, itemized bill for legal services provided. Respondent's record-keeping did not allow him to present an itemized bill. On August 7, 1987, respondent billed Ms. Yurenka for legal services rendered without detailing those services. She paid him in October. In December, Ms. Yurenka hired another lawyer who asked respondent to notify the court of his withdrawal and send her Ms. Yurenka's file. Respondent sought confirmation from Ms. Yurenka that she was discharging him and wanted him to withdraw, but added that he would withdraw by the end of December if he did not hear from her. The client responded without addressing respondent's inquiry. She requested an itemized bill of the services he had rendered. At the end of January, 1988, respondent withdrew from the court action. In February, he wrote the client's new lawyer that he wanted to resolve any questions over his fee, adding: I will be able to prepare a specific accounting for Ms. Yurenka of all my work for her. To my mind, however, this will be a substantial change in the agreement that we had. I can assure you that I spent substantially more time on the case than I have been paid for, and if requested to prepare a complete accounting I will do so and then expect payment for whatever balance it turns out remains unpaid. As a rough estimate, I had told Ms. Yurenka that the unbilled portion would be about thirty three percent extra. The new lawyer responded that she found respondent's threat to increase his bill to be inappropriate and again sought Ms. Yurenka's file. Respondent began transmitting the file on March 25, 1988. The committee found that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility in two respects in connection with the Yurenka case. [2] It concluded that respondent's threat to increase his bill if he was required to create an itemized statement was conduct that adversely reflects on [respondent's] fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102(A)(7). It concluded that the delay in forwarding Ms. Yurenka's file to the new lawyer was excessive and unjustified and was also a violation of DR 1-102(A)(7) and of DR 2-110(A)(2) (a withdrawing lawyer must take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of [the] client, including delivering to the client all papers and property to which the client is entitled).