Opinion ID: 1937211
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: resumption of the practice of law

Text: ¶ 29. In order to alleviate concern over his demonstrated inability to properly maintain a trust account, Mr. Carroll testified that upon reinstatement he would have his criminal clients execute a fee agreement that would, at the very least, reduce the likelihood of him ever having to return any retainer. The referee found that this was a flat-fee retainer agreement which would not allow for any refund to any client under any circumstances. The referee was therefore concerned that Mr. Carroll's proposed agreement would arguably violate SCR 20:1.5(a) [7] which requires an attorney's fee to be reasonable and SCR 20:1.16(d) [8] which requires an attorney to refund any advance payment of a fee that has not been earned. ¶ 30. As a result, the referee concluded as a matter of law that Mr. Carroll had failed to prove that his resumption of the practice of law would not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest. ¶ 31. Mr. Carroll has argued on appeal, and the OLR concedes, that the referee misunderstood his proposed agreement and that it does permit a refund of unearned retainer. Nonetheless, the OLR argues that his intent still was to avoid any obligation or return any unearned fees in criminal cases. It also noted that Mr. Carroll would have to have a trust account for civil cases, particularly to disburse settlements. ¶ 32. We hold that the referee's finding of fact that the proposed fee agreement did not allow for any refunds to clients was clearly erroneous. However, we still conclude as a matter of law, as did the referee, that Mr. Carroll has not met his burden to demonstrate that his resumption of the practice of law would not be detrimental to the administration of justice or subversive of the public interest. [12] ¶ 33. Regardless of how Mr. Carroll's proposed criminal fee agreement can be characterized, the heart of the problem is that even he recognizes his continued inability to properly handle his trust account affairs. Given his substantial disciplinary history, particularly as it relates to trust fund difficulties, we cannot conclude that Mr. Carroll has made a good faith effort to demonstrate that his trust fund problems are behind him and that his resumed practice of law would be free of misconduct in that regard. [9]