Opinion ID: 2196922
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Richards Matter

Text: Martha Richards hired respondent to pursue a medical malpractice claim. She signed a contingency fee agreement, agreeing to pay respondent $350 an hour up to a total of $20,000, this fee to be credited against respondent's 25-percent contingent fee. The agreement provided that the $20,000 was immediately earned at the time of payment    that the payment will be made as soon as possible    [and that this payment] NEED NOT BE PLACED IN THE TRUST ACCOUNT FOR FUTURE SERVICES PAYMENT. Richards paid the $20,000, part of which she raised by a mortgage loan on her home. In August 1991, respondent served a complaint on Richards' behalf. The defendants served a demand for expert review, requesting that respondent produce an affidavit as required by law. In October, the defendants served an answer and discovery requests, including interrogatories. Richards prepared handwritten answers to the interrogatories and gave them to respondent, but respondent never answered the interrogatories. In March, respondent submitted an affidavit from a doctor that was late and legally insufficient. In May 1992, the defendants served a motion for summary judgment. Respondent did not file any papers in opposition to the defendants' motion; instead, in June, he wrote defendants that [m]y client has decided to dismiss her claim on condition that there is no claim for costs or attorney's fees. Six days later respondent executed a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice of Richards' claim. The referee found that Richards never authorized respondent to dismiss the case. Richards was told by respondent that her case was over because a doctor could not be found to testify. Again, the client was never given a bill, an accounting, or any refund. There was expert testimony that respondent's $350 an hour fee was unreasonable; that there was no basis to go forward with a malpractice claim; and that the respondent had done no work at all in pursuing the claim during the 6 months the case was in suit.