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

lawsuitattorneylawyerwill
attorneylawyerwillrespondent

Related Cases

In re Estate of Leavey, 41 Kan.App.2d 423, 202 P.3d 99
View Case »
Elkader Production Credit Ass’n v. Eulberg, 251 N.W.2d 234
View Case »
Allen v. Stewart, 7 Del.Ch. 287, 44 A. 786
View Case »
Utley v. Graves, 258 F.Supp. 959
View Case »
In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181, 190 P.3d 535, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 169, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,070, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,171
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Matter of Gerard, 634 N.E.2d 51

Facts

William J. Gerard, an attorney, was charged with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Attorneys at Law due to his representation of an elderly client, Ruth Randolph, in 1985. Gerard entered into a contingency fee arrangement with Randolph, who was hospitalized and needed assistance with her will and recovering lost certificates of deposit. After identifying and collecting the certificates, Gerard charged an excessive fee, retaining a significant portion for himself, which led to a lawsuit from Randolph's estate after her death.

William J. Gerard, an attorney admitted to practice law in Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Missouri, was charged in a complaint for disciplinary action with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Attorneys at Law.

Issue

Did William J. Gerard engage in professional misconduct by charging a clearly excessive fee and committing fraud in his representation of Ruth Randolph?

Did William J. Gerard engage in professional misconduct by charging a clearly excessive fee and committing fraud in his representation of Ruth Randolph?

Rule

A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee, as defined by Disciplinary Rule 2–105(A) and 2–105(B).

A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee.

Analysis

The court found that Gerard's actions in charging over $150,000 for services that required minimal legal skill and time were clearly excessive. The factors considered included the nature of the work performed, the lack of difficulty in the legal issues, and the absence of time constraints imposed by the client. The court concluded that Gerard's retention of the excessive fee constituted fraudulent behavior, as it misrepresented the value of the services rendered.

The court found that Gerard's actions in charging over $150,000 for services that required minimal legal skill and time were clearly excessive.

Conclusion

The court ordered that William J. Gerard be suspended from the practice of law for a period of not less than one year, beginning June 10, 1994.

It is, therefore, ordered that the Respondent, William J. Gerard, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of not less than one year.

Who won?

The Disciplinary Commission prevailed in the case, as the court found Gerard's conduct to be in violation of professional conduct rules, warranting suspension.

The Disciplinary Commission prevailed in the case, as the court found Gerard's conduct to be in violation of professional conduct rules, warranting suspension.

You must be