Purola Brief for MT1
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
College of Lake County *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by KidDogPerson965
TO: Attny. Maria
DATE: 6/9/2023
FROM: Ian Duncan
RE:
Disciplinary Counsel v. Purola
Statement of Facts:
On October 1, 2020, Ronnie Dykes was charged with felonious assault and other offenses
in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. On October 8, he was further charged with drug
possession and trafficking. Purola agreed to represent Dykes in the assault case for a flat fee of
$10,000. Lakeisha Jackson, Dyke’s friend, paid the fee in cash. Purola deposited only $7,950 into
his client's trust account. Purola furthermore agreed to represent Dykes in the drug case, and
Jackson later paid Purola $2,000 in cash. Purola deposited $1,700 of the fee into his client trust
account. Jackson also paid Purola an additional $500, but Purola did not deposit any of those
funds into the trust account.
By December of 2020, Jackson had notified Purola that he had “done nothing for Dykes”
and was discharging him from representing Dykes in the assault and drug cases. Jackson
requested a refund, and Purola notified Jackson that he would not be returning the money, and
that “the Supreme Court [had] established a program for fee disputes, and that would be [her]
remedy.”
Purola did not document the tasks he performed for Dykes, but court records indicated
that he had only been present at one hearing, had filed a handful of motions (some of which has
been previously filed and/or denied), and spent almost 5 hours with Dykes over the course of the
65 days Purola was representing him.
Question Presented:
Whether the $12,500 in legal fees is excessive, given the minimal amount of work Purola
did while representing Dykes?
Brief Answer:
Yes, the $12,500 is clearly excessive, given the minimal amount of work done by Purola.
Furthermore, Purola’s actions amounted to numerous Client-trust-account violations and
included the failure to report funds.
Discussion:
Purola failed to respond to the complaint and, therefore, was deemed to have violated
Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a)
Prohibiting a lawyer from making an agreement for, charging, or collecting
an illegal or clearly excessive fee,
Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c)
Requiring a lawyer to deposit advance
legal fees and expenses into a client trust account, to be withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees
are earned or expenses incurred,
and Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e)
Requiring a lawyer to promptly
refund any unearned fee upon the lawyer’s withdrawal from employment.
When imposing sanctions, the Court looked to previous cases in which a similar amount
of money was charged, and the fees were not returned to the client after representation ceased. In
Disciplinary Counsel v. Sumner;
an attorney charged $15,000 worth of legal fees and failed to
see the case through trial. The attorney then refused to return the fees after representation ceased.
After finding the attorney guilty of charging excessive fees, the court suspended him for six
months and conditioned his reinstatement on his making restitution.
In the case at hand, the court found the aggravating factors present were similar to
Sumner.
Given the similarity in aggravating factors, the court determined that a six-month
suspension conditioned on the reimbursement to the LFCP is also appropriate in this situation.
Conclusion:
Attorney Purola will be suspended for six months, conditioned on the reimbursement of
the legal fees ascertained while representing Dykes. Purola was suspended for his violations of
Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a), Prof.Cond.R. 1.15(c), and Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e), which were unopposed as a
result of Purola defaulting on his response to the complaint filed by the disciplinary board.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help