Opinion ID: 1925938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Fee Overcharges.

Text: The overcharges of $110,000 were not the product of mere neglect or mistake, as respondent contended, but instead were evidence that [r]espondent was engaged in a pattern of submitting bills which contained misrepresentations as to the work done and which failed to give appropriate credit for payment previously made. The Master found this conduct to be unethical and to reflect adversely on respondent's fitness to practice law because the billing practices involved misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A)(1), (3), (4), and (6). He also found that the conduct violated DR 2-106(D) (lawyer shall be disciplined for fees so excessive as to be overreaching). [1] The Master premised these findings on the respondent's recognition that he had repeatedly included items that had been previously paid and that he had failed to credit the Township for retainers received. The Special Master did not premise his finding of ethical misconduct on the various other allegations, neither in the bond issue nor in the respondent's billing at his own hourly rate for the services of legal research organizations or law clerks. Reasoning that since respondent was ultimately responsible for these services and had both to check and to vouch for their reliability, the Master noted that there was some minimal basis for their submission and the question of their reasonableness did not rise to one of ethical misconduct. The Special Master also declined to find that certain other fees were exorbitant, unreasonable, or fictitious. He saw too much leeway in the subjective process of evaluating the reasonableness of a particular attorney's fee in a specific matter to find respondent's billing of the Township unethical in comparison with the hourly fees of other attorneys. The Master also held that the lump sum verdict of $45,000 predicated on civil fraud did not enable him to find, in the absence of other proof, which of several instances of overcharges formed the basis of the verdict. He did not make a finding of fraud against respondent.