Opinion ID: 4211093
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: kba infraction files.

Text: ' ' Gary Scott hired Wibbels on· February 24, 2010, paying a $500.00 retainer for assistance with an employment matter.. Wibbels ended up writing a ' single letter on behalf of Scott. It is undisputed that Scott had significant trouble reaching Wibbels, including missing an appointment that had been scheduled, for which Scott traveied from Owensboro to Louisville to attend. Wibbels sent an e-mail to·Scott explai.D.ing he had missed the meeting because of health issues and offered to return Scott's docume~ts. Scott . . ' '! . requested that Wibbels retUrn all of the case files and a refund of the $500.00 _payment. Wibbels did not return the money. Wibbels initially told -Office of Bar Counsel (OB_C) that the $500.00 was a flat fee to write the single letter and that he had a non-refundable fee agreement to corroborate this. He failed to provide arty evidence of ~is letter ai;id later re-characterized the fee as a flat fee and offered to create a time log, which he failed to do. Wibbels was served with a Bar Complaint and a remin9.er letter; he failed to respond to the Complaint. · The Inquiry Commission charged Wibbels with violating SCR 3.130(1.3) . (lack of diligence)~ (L4)(a)(3) (failure to keep client reasonably informed), (1.4)(a)(4) (failure to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information), (1.16)(d) (failure to return client's documents and refund any unearned fee on· termination of representation), and (8. l)(b) (failure to respond to lawful demand ·for information from a disciplinary authority). Wibbels concedes he failed to comply with these rules. 2
Tiffanie Hunter hired Wibbels on or about Februazy 1, 2010, with regard to a complaint against her employer. Hunter paid Wibbels $100.00 to write a letter to her employer, which was to go out Within a week, with a copy sent to her. Hunter never received a copy of the letter. Hunter then hired Wibbels to appear for her at an unemployment hearing. Wibbels accepted the case and said it would be a total $500.00, applying her previous $100.00 payment to the total. Wibbels failed to submit a representation letter on Hunter's behalf and further failed to return her file and unearned fee. Wibbels failed to provide the OBC any documents in response to allegations of the Complaint. As further conceded by Wibbels, he failed to respond to the Bar Complaint levied against him. The Inquiry Commission issued a 4-count Charge, asserting violations of SCR 3.130(1.2) (scope of representation); (1.3) (lack of diligence), (1.16)(d) (failure to return a client's documents and refund unearned fee on termination of representation), and (8: l)(b) (failure to respond to lawful demand for information from a discipliriazy authority). Wibbels concedes he failed to comply with these rules.
.On or about Januazy 16,-2010, Stacey Russell sought Wibbels's · assistance in an employment matter. Wibbels informed Russell that he would reach out to her if he needed further information, and took no further action on the case. Russell left her name at Wibbels's office while he was out sick in the hospital, and he never returned her call. Wibbels admits he never spoke to 3 Russell after the initial contact, and further failed to respond to the \ corresponding Bar Complaint. The Inquiry Commission issued a 4-count Charge, charging Wibbels with violating SCR 3.130(1.3) (lack of diligence), (1.4)(a)(4) (failure to promptly comply With reasonable requests for information), (1.16)(dJ (failure to return client's papers on termination-of representation), and (8.l)(b) (failure to . respond to lawful demand-for . information from a disciplinary authority). Wibbels concedes he failed to comply with these rules.
On or about July 3, 2010, Wibbels was hired by Kimberly Marlett in connection with her divorce. Marlett gave Wibbels a $2,500.00 check and authorized him to charge $2,500.00 on·h~r credit card. On the initial credit card transaction, the amount of $5,ooo.oo was accidently taken, creating a total of $7,500.00 given to Wibbels. Marlett requested a $5,000.00 refund since the original fee was going to be $2,500.00 upfront. On July 19, 2010, Wibbels 'issued a check to Marlett for $2,500.00, which was returned for insufficie~t funds. On July 20, 2010, . . . . another $5,000.00 was withdrawn from Marlett's credit card by Wibbels.'s office, creating a total payment of $12,500.00. Wibbels agreed to make the bad ch~ck good and to refund the additional . . charge to Marlett's credit card, but he failed to do either. Further, he did.not file the divorce on Marlett's behalf and did not refund the unearned fee. Marlett disputed the char~es to her credit card and received credit for them, but. 4 ( Wibbels never repaid the initial $2,500.00. Wibbels was served with a Bar Complaint and a reminder letter, but failed to respond to the Complaint. The Inquiry Commission· issued a 4-count Charge against Wibbels for violations of SCR 3.130(1. 5) (a) (ch~ging an unreasonable fee), (1.16) (d) (failing to refund unearned fee on termination of representation), (8. l){b) (failure to respond to lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority), and (8.4)(c) (dishonest conduct). Wibbels concedes hefailed to comply with these rules.
On March 19, 2010, Jodie Thompson, Sr., hired Wibbels to represent him in a breach-of-contra~t claim against his former· employer and a breach-ofduty-of-fair-representation claim against his union. They entere~ into a written agreem~nt, setting forth a $2,500.00 minimum retainer, with non-refundable handwritten in parentheses. The agreement further provided for a contingent fee, along with the retainer, and an hourly billing rate of $175.00 per· hour, or a contingent fee. of 25 percent (if settled prior to litigation) or 33 percent (if settled I . after the filing _of a dispositive motion or after the commencement of trial). Thompson paid $2,500.00 on M~ch 19, 2010. He paid an additional $3,500.00 on September 6, 2010, in connection with the same case. After receiving these funds, Wibbels began representing the National Association of . Government Employees, an SIU union. Wibbels determined_that he could not represent Thompson because of this conflict, and he told Thompson that he would find another attorney to take the case. 5 Unable to reach Wibbels, Thompson contacted. the court and learned that his case had been dismissed. Thompson had to retrieve all his papers from the court because Wibbels failed to provide Thompson's new attorney a copy of the file. Further, Wibbels acknowledged a large portion of the fee Thompson paid.··. him was unearned. Wibbels failed to respond when asked by the Office of Bar Counsel .why he had not refunded the unearned portion of the fee or to provide proof if any refund had been made. He al~o failed to respo:nd to the. Office of Bar Counsel when it inquired as to whether Wibbels h~d provided a copy of Thompson's file to his new counsel. · The lnqtliry Commission issued a 6-count Charge against Wibbels, charging him with violations of SCR 3.130(1.4)(0.)(3) (failure to keep ·client reasonably informed), (1.S)(a) (charging an unreasonable fee}, (1.7)(a) (conflict of interest}, (l.S)(e) (failure to deposit advance, unearned fees into an escrow , ' account}, (1.16)(d) (failure to refund unearned fee and provide copy of file to c successor counsel}, and (8. l)(b) (failure to respond to lawful demand for information from a disciplinary auth01j.ty). Wibbels concedes he failed to comply with these rules.