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

attorneyliabilityappealappellant

settlementattorneyappellantappellee

Related Cases

Rose v. Winters, Yonker & Rousselle, P.S.C., 391 S.W.3d 871

Facts

The Appellants, James and Christopher Rose, were injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently engaged the services of Winters, Yonker & Rousselle, P.S.C. for legal representation. They alleged that the attorneys illegally solicited their business through advertisements and directed them to a specific medical provider associated with the advertising entity. After settling their claims, the Appellants sought the return of all attorney fees paid, claiming violations of the Kentucky Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Appellants filed a complaint against their former attorneys, the Appellees, seeking forfeiture of all attorney fees paid by them to the Appellees for alleged violations of the Kentucky Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct.

Issue

Did the Appellants have a private right of action to seek forfeiture of attorney fees paid to their former attorneys for alleged violations of the Kentucky Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct?

Rule

The Kentucky Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct do not create a private cause of action for infractions of disciplinary rules, and the appropriate disciplinary agency must first determine any unethical or illegal solicitation before a civil action for fee forfeiture can be pursued.

The Kentucky Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct do not create a private cause of action for infractions of disciplinary rules.

Analysis

The court analyzed the Appellants' claims in light of the Kentucky Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly SCR 3.130 (7.10). It concluded that while the rule allows for a civil action to recover fees, it does not permit a determination of whether the solicitation was illegal or unethical without prior findings from the appropriate disciplinary agency. The court emphasized that the rules are designed for regulatory purposes and do not establish civil liability.

In this case, there were no allegations made in the complaint that the Appellees were negligent in handling the Appellants' personal injury claims or in negotiating the settlements. Instead, the Appellants' claims are based on violations of the Kentucky Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Appellants' complaint, concluding that they lacked a private right of action to seek forfeiture of attorney fees based on alleged violations of professional conduct rules.

Affirmed.

Who won?

Winters, Yonker & Rousselle, P.S.C. prevailed because the court found that the Appellants had no private right of action to seek forfeiture of fees based on the alleged violations.

The Appellees argued that the Kentucky Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct do not create a private cause of action for infractions of disciplinary rules.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Wright by Wright v. Group Health Hosp., 103 Wash.2d 192, 691 P.2d 564, 50 A.L.R.4th 641, 53 USLW 2309

Farris v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 119 Cal.App.4th 671, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 618, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5355, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7318

Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of America, 454 F.2d 1036, 78 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2911, 147 U.S.App.D.C. 193, 66 Lab.Cas. P 12,223

Rowe v. Yuba County, 17 Cal. 61, 1860 WL 999

Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 125 S.Ct. 2074, 161 L.Ed.2d 876, 73 USLW 4343, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,106, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4301, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5868, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 303