Opinion ID: 2449627
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Shepard Complaint

Text: ¶ 4 The first complaint, filed by Stephen Shepard, alleged that Mr. Long charged Mr. Shepard an unreasonable fee for legal services and pursued a frivolous lawsuit to recover those legal fees (the Shepard Matter). Mr. Shepard first learned of Mr. Long's services when Mr. Long mailed him correspondence about a free legal consultation with L. Long Lawyers. After receiving this correspondence, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Long met the day before Mr. Shepard was scheduled for an initial court appearance for a DUI and other related charges. Following their meeting, Mr. Long agreed to represent Mr. Shepard on an emergency basis for a hearing the next day. Mr. Shepard paid Mr. Long one hundred dollars for this service. ¶ 5 After the initial court appearance, Mr. Shepard signed a flat fee agreement for $6,600, under which Mr. Long agreed to represent Mr. Shepard up to and including the pre-trial conference or preliminary hearing and subsequent sentencing upon entry of a plea. The agreement also provided that the $6,600 fee would be fully earned [] once substantial services have been performed by [Mr. Long]. ¶ 6 Approximately two days after the initial court appearance, Mr. Shepard contacted Mr. Long's office to inform Mr. Long that he had decided to retain another attorney. Although Mr. Shepard contacted Mr. Long's office, Mr. Long did not learn that Mr. Shepard had hired another attorney until Mr. Long attended a hearing in Mr. Shepard's case a few weeks later. After seeing Mr. Shepard's new attorney, Mr. Long ceased working on Mr. Shepard's case. Mr. Shepard did not pay Mr. Long for services beyond the initial court appearance. ¶ 7 Six months after Mr. Shepard terminated Mr. Long's representation, Mr. Long's office sent the flat fee agreement to a collection agency. The collection agency then filed a lawsuit against Mr. Shepard for $7,775.34, the full amount of the flat fee agreement plus interest. After receiving notice of the lawsuit, Mr. Shepard discussed the collection action with an attorney who tried to negotiate a settlement. ¶ 8 As a result of this lawsuit, Mr. Shepard filed a complaint with the OPC. The OPC mailed Mr. Long a Notice of Informal Complaint and provided Mr. Long with an opportunity to respond to the allegations of misconduct. After Mr. Long provided a response, the OPC conducted a preliminary investigation and provided Mr. Long with a copy of its findings. The OPC's investigation found that Mr. Long's actions violated the rules of professional conduct. As a result of this finding, the OPC referred the Shepard Matter to the Committee. [1] Pursuant to the Utah Rules of Lawyer Discipline and Disability (the RLDD), part of the Supreme Court's Rules of Professional Practice, the Committee's screening panel (the Screening Panel) held a hearing at which Mr. Long and Mr. Shepard testified and presented evidence. [2] ¶ 9 At the hearing, Mr. Shepard stated that he did not believe that he had hired Mr. Long to represent him. In response, Mr. Long testified that he had spent a total of six hours working on Mr. Shepard's case, and that this would constitute approximately $1,500 in legal fees. Additionally, Mr. Long stated that when the collection agency contacted him about a possible settlement with Mr. Shepard, he initially told them that he would agree to a settlement amount of $1,500. Mr. Long also testified that he instructed the collection agency to terminate the lawsuit after Mr. Shepard contacted the OPC. At the hearing, Mr. Long admitted that it was absolutely not reasonable for an attorney to charge $6,600 for six hours of work. ¶ 10 Based on this evidence, the Screening Panel concluded that Mr. Long had violated rules 1.5(a), [3] 3.1, [4] 7.1, [5] 7.5(d), [6] and 8.4 [7] of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct. The Screening Panel made a recommendation to the Committee Chair that Mr. Long receive a nonpublic admonition. [8] In recommending an admonition, the Screening Panel considered it a mitigating factor that Mr. Shepard did not actually pay Mr. Long an unreasonable fee. ¶ 11 Mr. Long filed an exception to the Committee Chair, arguing that the Screening Panel's recommendation was not supported by substantial evidence and that its findings of fact were insufficient to support its conclusions. The Committee Chair held a hearing at which Mr. Long presented evidence. The Committee Chair rejected Mr. Long's arguments, upheld the Screening Panel's recommendation, and imposed the sanction of a nonpublic admonition.