Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementattorneyhearing
lawyerhearingrespondent

Related Cases

Waldman v. Levine, 544 A.2d 683, 78 A.L.R.4th 703
View Case »
Universal Acupuncture Pain Services, P.C. v. Quadrino & Schwartz, P.C., 370 F.3d 259
View Case »
Manganella v. Keyes, 613 F.Supp. 795
View Case »
State Compensation Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc., 70 Cal.App.4th 644, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 799, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1695, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2149
View Case »
Margulies By and Through Margulies v. Upchurch, 696 P.2d 1195
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Teichner, 104 Ill.2d 150, 470 N.E.2d 972, 83 Ill.Dec. 552

Facts

Marshall I. Teichner was charged with overreaching and dishonest conduct in his representation of Helen Escobedo, who sought to claim life insurance proceeds following the death of her partner, Juan Escobedo. Teichner entered into contingent-fee agreements with Escobedo, charging excessive fees and failing to provide proper accounting for the funds he received. The hearing panel found that Teichner had commingled and converted client funds, leading to the disciplinary action against him.

Both of the charges here involved stem from the respondent's representation of Helen Escobedo, the complainant, in matters arising from the death of Juan Escobedo.

Issue

Did Marshall I. Teichner engage in unethical conduct by charging excessive fees and commingling and converting client funds?

The respondent's major contention before this court is that the Administrator failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent charged excessive fees and converted and commingled client funds as alleged in the complaint.

Rule

An attorney shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or excessive fee, and must maintain complete records of all funds of a client coming into their possession.

At the times involved here DR 2–106 of the Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility (Illinois State Bar Association (1970)) provided in pertinent part: 'A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or excessive fee.'

Analysis

The court applied the rules regarding excessive fees and the handling of client funds to the facts of the case, determining that Teichner's fee of approximately $7,000 was unconscionable given the circumstances. The court noted that the payment of the insurance proceeds was routine and did not involve a settlement or judgment, thus not justifying the fee charged. Additionally, Teichner's failure to maintain proper records and his ambiguous explanations regarding the funds further supported the finding of misconduct.

Giving due consideration to the factors listed in DR 2–106 and the circumstances here presented, we conclude that a lawyer of ordinary prudence would be left with a definite and firm conviction that a fee of approximately $7,000 in connection with the insurance proceeds in the circumstances of this case was not only in excess of a reasonable fee, but was unconscionable as the hearing panel found.

Conclusion

The court upheld the recommendation for disbarment, concluding that Teichner's actions demonstrated a significant insensitivity to ethical standards and warranted severe disciplinary action.

We concur with the determination of the hearing panel and Review Board that the collection of this fee warrants disciplinary action.

Who won?

The Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary System prevailed, as the court found sufficient evidence of Teichner's misconduct and upheld the recommendation for disbarment.

The hearing panel and Review Board have both unanimously recommended that the respondent be disbarred.

You must be