Opinion ID: 2039059
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: matter of m.h.

Text: ¶ 27. The complaint alleged and the referee found that on or about February 2, 2001, Attorney Goldstein was retained to represent M.H. in a pending parole revocation hearing. Attorney Goldstein agreed to handle the revocation hearing for what M.H. thought would be a flat fee of $750. This fee was paid to Attorney Goldstein in installments in February, March, and April 2001. There was no written fee agreement. ¶ 28. The parties vigorously disputed how the attorney-client relationship proceeded. M.H. asserted that he made repeated attempts to arrange meetings with Attorney Goldstein to discuss the pending revocation proceedings. He testified that he was concerned because he had only spoken with Attorney Goldstein briefly by telephone, and they had not discussed specifics of the upcoming revocation proceeding. M.H. asserted that he made arrangements to meet Attorney Goldstein one hour before the scheduled revocation hearing, but Goldstein failed to appear for the pre-hearing meeting. It is undisputed that Attorney Goldstein did appear for the hearing, but M.H. believed Goldstein was not adequately prepared. Accordingly, M.H. discharged Attorney Goldstein and requested a refund of all legal fees paid. ¶ 29. Attorney Goldstein maintains that he was prepared for the revocation hearing. He produced evidence indicating that he did meet with M.H. on a date prior to the revocation hearing. However, he admitted that he had no recollection of the details of the meeting and was unable to produce notes, time records, or other file materials to demonstrate that he discussed the matter with his client. ¶ 30. In any event, following termination of the representation, Attorney Goldstein sent M.H. an itemized billing dated June 27, 2001, indicating that an additional $430 was due in fees relating to the revocation matter. Attorney Goldstein admitted he never informed M.H. of his legal billing rate. ¶ 31. Ultimately, after considering the conflicting evidence presented at the hearing, the referee concluded that Attorney Goldstein had failed to keep his client reasonably informed of the status of the matter, in violation of SCR 20:1.4(a). ¶ 32. The referee was clearly more concerned about the lack of a written fee agreement in this matter. Attorney Goldstein testified that his general practice was to quote flat fees when retained in such matters. He testified that he believed in flat fee arrangements and that he would generally absorb any additional charges that exceeded the flat fee he quoted his clients. In this matter, however, Attorney Goldstein charged and received a flat fee of $750 to represent M.H., but after being fired by M.H. he proceeded to submit an additional bill for $430. Moreover, Attorney Goldstein acknowledged that he did not discuss the prospect of fees beyond the $750 with his client or with the individuals who initially hired him on the client's behalf. Accordingly, the referee found that: There was no way [the client], or the persons who hired Goldstein on behalf of [the client], would know if additional legal fees would be incurred, and if so, how those fees would be computed. Goldstein acknowledges that the fee arrangement was not reduced to writing. Goldstein produced no documentation in support of his alleged fee position in this matter. . . . Moreover, Goldstein did not produce the file for this matter or otherwise document the fees he charged for his work in this matter. Report and Recommendation at 18. ¶ 33. Thus, the referee concluded that by failing to clearly articulate or reduce to writing his fee agreement with his client, Goldstein failed to communicate the basis or rate to the client within a reasonable time after the commencement of his representation, in violation of SCR 20:1.5(b). ¶ 34. On appeal, Attorney Goldstein admits there was no written billing agreement but maintains he was adequately prepared to represent M.H., thus challenging the referee's conclusion that he violated SCR 20:1.4. While the court is mindful that representing criminal defendants may be a challenging practice, Attorney Goldstein does not detail or provide documentary evidence to support his claim that he adequately communicated with this client and we conclude that the record supports the referee's conclusions of law with respect to this matter.