Opinion ID: 2506574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Respondent Takes Action to Secure His Fees

Text: On May 6, 2004, Respondent filed a notice of attorney's charging lien pursuant to C.R.S. § 12-5-119 in El Paso District Court, 02DR4721, the divorce case, claiming attorney's fees in the amount of $6,640.97 and asserting a claim to Mrs. Varner's share of the proceeds of sale of the residence. On May 25, 2004, Respondent amended his lien to include other obligations that Mr. Varner owed to Mrs. Varner pursuant to the decree dissolving their marriage. [19] In dealing with the title company on the sale of the Varner's home, Respondent asked the title company to make the proceeds checks payable to him and not Mrs. Varner. [20] Respondent wrote to the title company to ask them to assist him in collecting his fees ostensibly as Mrs. Varner's lawyer although she explicitly terminated him on March 29, 2004. In spite of Respondent's suggestion to the title company that he alone sign the closing documents and receive all the proceeds, they insisted that Mrs. Varner agree to such an arrangement and sign all closing documents. The closing of the Varner residence occurred on May 25, 2004. Both Respondent and Mrs. Varner attended the closing. Respondent's promissory note for $3,102.00, plus interest, was paid from the proceeds of the sale, and his deed of trust was released. Respondent also received and retained the balance of the sales proceeds ($4,095.13) in trust based upon his attorney's lien in 02DR4721. The People do not contest the reasonableness of these fees or whether Respondent earned them. Though the People do not question Respondent's fees, the attorney-client relationship between Mrs. Varner and Respondent had significantly deteriorated based upon the fees he charged her. At the closing, Respondent advised Mrs. Varner that he would be getting all of the equity, both hers and Mr. Varner's, from the sale of the house. Mrs. Varner questioned whether Respondent should receive all of the equity in the marital property, but nevertheless signed the documents authorizing him to receive them. While Respondent secured his legal fees following final orders in the divorce case, he did not take any action to secure his client's survival benefits in Mr. Varner's pension. On June 4, 2004, he filed a motion to enforce his attorney's lien in the Varner dissolution of marriage action. The motion did not include a claim for the fees he charged Mrs. Varner for services associated with the collection of his fees, approximately $350.00. Thus, Respondent did not seek a judicial order or judgment awarding him $350.00 for the time associated with collection. Respondent's rationale for keeping $350.00 more than the court allowed in its order is that his fee agreement allowed him to collect these funds. The fee agreement specifically states: In the event that legal action is necessary to recover attorney fees and costs from Client, Firm shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys fees incurred in said legal proceedings, and for fees and costs incurred in the collection of what is due and owing. Firm shall be entitled to its attorneys fees incurred for collection, whether or not suit is brought (emphasis added). [21] In his motion to enforce attorney's lien, Respondent also filed a form of order to enforce attorney's liens. District Court Judge Gilbert Martinez signed it on June 25, 2004, authorizing Respondent to retain $3,581.63 of the $4,095.13 in his trust account, to satisfy the Petitioner's contractual obligations to him. Respondent thereafter mailed a letter to Mrs. Varner dated July 29, 2004, in which he advised her that he was keeping $350.00 based on the work he performed to enforce his attorney's lien. On June 4, 2004, after collecting all of the proceeds from the Varner closing, filing his attorney's lien, and collecting the $350.00 he incurred in collecting his fees, Respondent filed a notice to withdraw from Mrs. Varner's case. [22] Before withdrawing, however, Respondent sent a letter to Mrs. Varner notifying her that he intended to withdraw from her case if she did not schedule an appointment with him. Respondent also wrote, I would like to review the specific charges that you believe were improperly made to your account so I can determine whether an adjustment should be made to your account. [23] Respondent, however, made no mention of his failure to call or inquire of OPM about Mrs. Varner's survivor benefits as she requested of him shortly after final orders in January 2004.