Opinion ID: 3192361
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Brown/Wright-Ochoa Case

Text: On August 17, 2010, Ms. Laverne G. Wright-Ochoa met with Ms. Sturm about retaining her to represent Ms. Wright-Ochoa’s son, Lael Brown, who was incarcerated. Ms. 3 (...continued) “[i]f the Court does not concur with the recommended disposition, the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Appeals shall promptly establish a briefing schedule and notify the parties of the date and time of oral argument . . . before the Supreme Court of Appeals.” 4 Rule 3.7 of the West Virginia Rules of Disciplinary Procedure requires allegations of formal charges against a lawyer be proven by “clear and convincing evidence” in order to recommend the imposition of discipline. 2 Wright-Ochoa wanted to institute a habeas corpus proceeding for her son. On August 23, 2010, Ms. Sturm mailed Ms. Wright-Ochoa an “Attorney-Client Hourly and/or Flat Fee Agreement.” That agreement provided for Ms. Wright-Ochoa to pay Ms. Sturm a general retainer of $5,000. On August 27, 2010, Ms. Wright-Ochoa signed the retainer agreement and returned it to Ms. Sturm. The record indicates that Ms. Wright-Ochoa gave Ms. Sturm the full retainer amount of $5,000 in three different installments agreed upon by the parties.5 Between August 27, 2010, and September 10, 2010, Ms. Wright-Ochoa emailed Ms. Sturm about the time frames for filing a petition for habeas corpus for her son and sent her documents regarding Mr. Brown’s case. When Ms. Sturm failed to respond to her inquiries, Ms. Wright-Ochoa sent Ms. Sturm a letter on September 22, 2010, regarding Ms. Sturm’s failure to communicate with her and Mr. Brown. Ms. Wright-Ochoa then attempted to contact Ms. Sturm. Ms. Sturm responded to her that same day by email, stating that she had been out of town for court and could not return any telephone calls. Ms. Sturm sent Ms. Wright-Ochoa another email two days later, indicating that she had received Ms. Wright-Ochoa’s messages, but had been unable to respond to her. She further stated in the email that she should have the petition for habeas corpus completed “by the beginning of 5 The record also establishes that Ms. Sturm deposited some of the retainer received into her business account and not into a client trust account. 3 next week” and that she would need to review the petition with Mr. Brown in order to obtain his signature before she could file it in the circuit court. Ms. Wright-Ochoa emailed Ms. Sturm the day after receiving Ms. Sturm’s second email. Ms. Wright-Ochoa told Ms. Sturm that she had not received a signed copy of the fee agreement and she requested to meet with her on October 1, 2010, because Ms. Wright-Ochoa would be in town for a hearing concerning Mr. Brown. Ms. Wright-Ochoa also sent the attorney additional information about Mr. Brown’s case. On September 28, 2010, Ms. Sturm responded to Ms. Wright-Ochoa’s email, indicating that she would leave a copy of the signed fee agreement for her to pick up. Ms. Sturm was also going to leave a copy of the petition for habeas corpus for Ms. Wright­ Ochoa’s review and another copy for Ms. Wright-Ochoa to provide to Mr. Brown for review. On that same day, Ms. Wright-Ochoa sent a letter to Ms. Sturm, again requesting a meeting as they had not met since the initial consultation in August. In an email that was sent the next day, September 29, 2010, Ms. Wright-Ochoa informed Ms. Sturm that she would be unable to stop by her office prior to meeting with Mr. Brown. Ms. Wright-Ochoa also sent Ms. Sturm additional documents about the case and expressed to Ms. Sturm that she was upset because she wanted to meet with Ms. Sturm. The 4 same day, Ms. Sturm sent Mr. Brown a copy of the petition for habeas corpus that she had prepared for him to review. Ms. Sturm had not visited Mr. Brown, but stated in the communication included with the petition that she was going to visit him soon to discuss the petition with him and have him sign it. On October 1, 2010, Ms. Wright-Ochoa again emailed Ms. Sturm asking for a meeting as they had not meet since the original meeting. Three days later, Ms. Sturm answered Ms. Wright-Ochoa’s email and stated that she had other clients and matters to work on and that she did “not have time to sit at [her] desk waiting for emails from” Ms. WrightOchoa. Ms. Sturm further indicated that the process with the habeas petition could take some time and that she would meet with her the next time she was in town. On October 4, 2010, Ms. Wright-Ochoa received a draft of the habeas petition. She made comments and sent them back to Ms. Sturm. Ms. Sturm indicated to Ms. WrightOchoa that she would make various changes and send her a copy of the final petition within a few weeks. Throughout the remainder of October, there were various communications between Ms. Sturm and Ms. Wright-Ochoa about setting up another appointment and sending a filing fee for the petition, which Ms. Wright-Ochoa agreed to do and did do6 at the end of the month. 6 Ms. Sturm never cashed the $200 check, dated October 15, 2010, for the filing fee. 5 In early November, there were additional communications between Ms. Wright-Ochoa and Ms. Sturm, including Ms. Wright-Ochoa sending Ms. Sturm additional documents about her Mr. Brown’s case and requesting a meeting so that Ms. Sturm could explain the matter to her son’s father. Around November 11, 2010, Ms. Sturm indicated in an email to Ms. Wright-Ochoa that the petition for habeas corpus would be ready by the end of the next week. In a November 24, 2010, email to Ms. Sturm, Ms. Wright-Ochoa inquired about whether Ms. Sturm had visited Mr. Brown or completed the petition. Ms. Sturm responded that she was sorry that she had not provided the petition to Ms. Wright-Ochoa sooner, but her children had been sick and she had been dealing with several family friends who had passed away. Another month passed during which Ms. Wright-Ochoa sent Ms. Sturm more documents about her son’s case, as well as requested information about the petition. Ms. Sturm did not respond to Ms. Wright-Ochoa until January 25, 2011, when she emailed Ms. Wright-Ochoa. According to the email, Ms. Sturm’s daughter needed surgery over the Christmas holiday and Ms. Sturm was still working on the petition–the petition that Ms. Sturm had told Ms. Wright-Ochoa would be completed before Thanksgiving. 6 On February 22, 2011, Ms. Wright-Ochoa informed Ms. Sturm that Mr. Brown was ineligible for parole. Then, during the first week of March, Ms. Wright-Ochoa inquired about the status of the petition for habeas corpus on two different occasions. Ms. Sturm failed to respond to the inquires until March 22, 2011, again telling Ms. Wright-Ochoa that the completed habeas petition “should” be competed by the end of the month. Several month passed until July 12, 2011. By certified letter on that date from Ms. Wright-Ochoa to Ms. Sturm, Ms. Wright-Ochoa states that she had not heard from Ms. Sturm since March, that she had not received the habeas petition for Mr. Brown, and that Ms. Sturm had not visited Mr. Brown to get his input regarding the petition. On that same date, Mr. Brown also sent a letter to Ms. Sturm requesting a refund of the $5,000 retainer that his mother had paid to her. Mr. Brown also indicated that he had not received any communication from Ms. Sturm since October of 2010, wherein she indicated that she would visit with him to go over the habeas petition. Mr. Brown also requested an accounting of the fees and itemization of costs. Another month passed and on August 2, 2011, Ms. Wright-Ochoa sent a second certified letter requesting refund of the unearned attorney fees and itemization of costs. 7 Finally, on August 18, 2011, Mr. Brown, pro se, filed a petition for habeas corpus in Monongalia County, West Virginia. Ms. Wright-Ochoa and Mr. Brown went several more months without any communication from Ms. Sturm. On February 10, 2012, Ms. Wright-Ochoa called Ms. Sturm’s office and discovered that Ms. Sturm’s office phone was disconnected. Ms. WrightOchoa, upon discovering through another attorney that Ms. Sturm’s office phone was back in service, made several phone calls to Ms. Sturm’s office leaving messages, none of which were returned by the attorney. After the passage of several more months with no communication from Ms. Sturm, on May 3, 2012, Ms. Wright-Ochoa and Mr. Brown filed complaints against the attorney with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“the ODC”). The complaints were opened for investigation and the ODC asked Ms. Sturm to file a response. On May 24, 2012, Ms. Sturm’s response was received by ODC. Ms. Sturm admitted that she agreed to represent Mr. Brown; that Ms. Wright-Ochoa was very involved in the case; that she had spent at least eighteen to twenty hours on the case; that she had met with Ms. Wright-Ochoa on Saturdays when she was in town, which meetings “usually lasted one to two hours[;]” that she had received a lot of emails, letters, and documents from Ms. Wright-Ochoa; that she had provided a draft of the habeas petition to Ms. Wright-Ochoa, who had made changes that Ms. 8 Sturm had incorporated into the petition; that she not heard from Ms. Wright-Ochoa for several months; that she had provided another copy of the draft petition to Ms. WrightOchoa, but had not gotten any response; that Ms. Sturm did not want to file the petition without receiving a response from Ms. Wright-Ochoa; that Ms. Sturm was ready to file the petition if Ms. Wright-Ochoa gave her permission; and that she had sent a copy of the petition to Mr. Brown and had never received a response from him. By letter dated June 12, 2012, the ODC requested Ms. Sturm to answer the following questions concerning the complaint: 1) what was the status of the petition; 2) why was Ms. Sturm’s office telephone service cut off; and 3) what was Ms. Sturm’s response to the allegation of her failure to communicate. The ODC also asked Ms. Sturm to provide an accounting of the work performed in the case. Ms. Sturm failed to respond to the June 12, 2012, letter. By letter dated June 26, 2012, the ODC asked the Respondent if she ever explained the habeas process to Mr. Brown and again requested an accounting of the work performed. Ms. Sturm again failed to answer the second letter from ODC. On August 9, 2012, the ODC sent additional letters by both certified and regular mail to Ms. Sturm again requesting answers to the above-mentioned inquiries. By 9 letter dated August 16, 2012, Ms. Sturm finally responded to the ODC’s inquiries, by first apologizing for her failure to respond earlier. She stated that “[d]ue to several transitions in . . . [her] office, this particular correspondence was not properly filed for . . . [her] to address.” Ms. Sturm answered the ODC’s inquiries, stating that the petition was ready to file; that there was a brief disruption in her phone service that was remedied as soon as she became aware of it;7 and that she did return Ms. Wright-Ochoa’s emails and phone calls. Ms. Sturm also provided an accounting of work performed as follows: “Telephone, email conferences[:] 4.1 hours[;]Review of documents from L.W.O[:] 11.3 hours[;] Research: 7.8 hours[;] Draft Petition: 8.7 hours[;] In-person conferences w/clients[:] 1.7 hours[.]” Ms. Sturm indicated that she had spent additional time on this case, but did not bill for it. She also stated that she had not included the costs for copies and postage and that she had “consulted other counsel about this case for additional insight into the Petition as well as advice on specifics that make a petition successful.” Mr. Brown testified that he was released from incarceration in January of 2013 after completing his sentence. By letter dated January 30, 2014, about a year later, ODC requested a status report of Mr. Brown’s case. Ms. Sturm again failed to respond. By letter dated February 25, 2014, ODC sent another letter by certified and regular mail requesting the 7 Interestingly, Ms. Sturm commented that she was “not quite sure why Ms. WrightOchoa is alleging my telephone service was inactive and at what time that allegedly occurred.” Ms. Sturm, however, did not explain why there was a service disruption. 10 same information. Ms. Sturm responded to this letter that she had had no contact with Ms. Wright-Ochoa due to the pending ethics complaint and that she could provide a copy of the habeas petition to Ms. Wright-Ochoa.