In Re The Settlement/Guardianship of AGM and LMM
This is a case where the attorney missed the SGAL hearing, lied to the court (claiming she was stuck in snow when there was no snow), erroneously told the court that she requested and prepared documents for the SGAL, and sent a three page demand on a policy limit case (undetermined whether it included all the medical records to substantiate).
Minor sisters were injured in an automobile accident. AGM’s medical specials totaled over $68,000.00 while LMM’s medical specials were $3,500.00. The family was represented by Rubinstein Law Firm who submitted a demand on behalf of the family that consisted of three pages and 7 lines dedicated to AGM’s claim. State Farm offered policy limits ($100,000.00) for AGM and $4,500 for LMM. Rubinstein accepted the offer for AGM (pending approval) and negotiated LMM’s settlement. An SGAL was appointed to review the settlement and fees (1/3 requested by the attorney per the rep agreement). The SGAL opined that a lower fee was appropriate for AGM as the attorney spent very little time on the case and there was no need to negotiate. After missing the first hearing and being requested to file an itemized lien wherein she claimed only 2 hours of attorney work on AGM’s case, the trial court approved $15,000.00 of the requested $33,333.33 fee for AGM. Rubinstein Law Firm appeals.
On appeal, Rubinstein argues that the trial court lacked a reasonable basis to reduce the fee, based its decision on the itemized lien, and applied an improper method for determining the fee. The court found that SPR 98.16W authorizes the trial court discretion over the fees and allows the trial court to consider itemized liens, SGAL recommendations, and attorney declarations. The court also noted that Rubinstein was incorrect in alleging that the burden of proof for determining a reasonable fee should have been the SGAL or State Farm and held that the burden is on the attorney requesting the fees.
Finally, the court disagrees again with Rubinstein, holding that the trial court did not determine the reduced fee on an unreasonable or arbitrary basis. The court quotes the RPC 1.5(a) disallowing attorneys from accepting an unreasonable fee. In pointing out that the attorney spent very little effort on AGM’s case to obtain the policy limit, the court ruled that the trial court acted reasonably in lowering Rubinstein’s fees.
January 7, 2010 at 12:19 am |
Man. That seems like a singularly unwise appeal.
January 7, 2010 at 2:34 pm |
FYI, I did not lie to the court. There was snow on the road and I could not travel to Tacoma from Issaquah.
In general, I do not have an opinion as to the decision of the appeallate court on the issue of what trial court judges could do in SGAL hearings.
On the issue of frivolousness of the appeal I strongly disagree. If you read the trial records you will notice that (1) I did not lie; (2) I stated several times that I was not involved with the case before that first hearing; (3) the case was not as simple as the SGAL wanted it to show and I never said it was easy.
Yes, I and some support stuff in our firm (she was fired after that hearing) made mistakes. My main mistake was that I was extremely inexperienced and took blame for the work I did not perform. I should have known better.
January 7, 2010 at 2:54 pm |
Yulia,
I appreciate you taking the time to draft a comment. Please appreciate that the ALP analysis is based on the majority opinion of the court and is meant to be a quick and dirty summation of often complex factual patterns. We of course appreciate the explanation of things that often don’t make it on the record, which provide our readers with greater understanding.
Justin P. Walsh
The Prof