Opinion ID: 2191641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: and 24 The Malcomb fee

Text: Kerpelman states: 23. No charge was originally made as to any excessive fee, but this sort of charge, apparently out of deference to More Important members of the bar than the Respondent was carefully avoided, but in fact, that is all that the charge concerning Malcomb amounts to by any clear and convincing evidence. 24. The Inquiry Panel made a formal finding that no excessive fees were charged and therefore each and every finding in any way related to fees should be rejected, (a) as a general matter of Due Process, (b) as a general matter of evidence and weight of evidence, (c) as a matter which was not properly charged against the Respondent, (d) as a new charge which the Respondent was not informed of and would not have known of before the hearing. Throughout this proceeding Kerpelman has attempted unsuccessfully to portray himself as a victim of some sort of conspiracy on the part of rich lawyers in large firms. As Judge Levin pointed out, on June 15, 1979, prior to the trial of this case on its merits, Bar Counsel withdrew the charges of violations of DR 2-106(A) (clearly excessive fee) in the relations of Kerpelman to Malcomb and Draper. We find this exception to be without merit.