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

defendantattorneylawyerappealpleaprosecutorrestitution
defendantattorneylawyerappealpleaprosecutorrestitution

Related Cases

Stevens v. Bispham, 316 Or. 221, 851 P.2d 556
View Case »
Lilyhorn v. Dier, 214 Neb. 728, 335 N.W.2d 554
View Case »
Sanford v. Maid-Rite Corp., 816 F.3d 546
View Case »
Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod and Gutnick, 526 Pa. 541, 587 A.2d 1346
View Case »
McNeary v. American Cyanamid Co., 105 Wash.2d 136, 712 P.2d 845
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

U.S. v. Vague, 697 F.2d 805

Facts

Steven Vague was indicted for possession of stolen goods, and his family hired attorney Robert De Meo to represent him. After Vague pleaded guilty, the district judge noticed that De Meo charged a $12,000 fee, which he later deemed excessive after questioning De Meo and others about the work performed. The judge ordered De Meo to return the difference between the maximum reasonable fee of $2,500 and the amount already paid, leading to De Meo's refusal and subsequent civil contempt ruling.

Steven Vague was indicted for possession of stolen goods, and his family hired attorney Robert De Meo to represent him. After Vague pleaded guilty, the district judge noticed that De Meo charged a $12,000 fee, which he later deemed excessive after questioning De Meo and others about the work performed.

Issue

Whether a federal district judge has the power to compel a criminal defendant's attorney to return part of a legal fee on the grounds that the fee is exorbitant.

Whether a federal district judge has the power to compel a criminal defendant's attorney to return part of a legal fee on the grounds that the fee is exorbitant.

Rule

A federal judge has a duty to take appropriate disciplinary measures against a lawyer for unprofessional conduct, but the authority to order restitution of an excessive legal fee must be exercised within the bounds of judicial power and not in a prosecutorial capacity.

A federal judge has a duty to take appropriate disciplinary measures against a lawyer for unprofessional conduct, but the authority to order restitution of an excessive legal fee must be exercised within the bounds of judicial power and not in a prosecutorial capacity.

Analysis

The court found that the district judge acted beyond his authority by ordering De Meo to return part of his fee without a formal complaint from the client. The judge's actions were seen as assuming the role of a prosecutor, which is inconsistent with the judicial function. The court emphasized that the judge should have referred the matter to an ethics committee rather than directly imposing a sanction.

The court found that the district judge acted beyond his authority by ordering De Meo to return part of his fee without a formal complaint from the client. The judge's actions were seen as assuming the role of a prosecutor, which is inconsistent with the judicial function.

Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the civil contempt ruling against De Meo, concluding that the district judge exceeded his power in ordering the return of the fee.

The appellate court reversed the civil contempt ruling against De Meo, concluding that the district judge exceeded his power in ordering the return of the fee.

Who won?

Robert De Meo prevailed in the appeal because the appellate court determined that the district judge overstepped his authority in compelling the return of the fee.

Robert De Meo prevailed in the appeal because the appellate court determined that the district judge overstepped his authority in compelling the return of the fee.

You must be