All
Help

In the Matter of Anna Shapiro

34 Mass. Att'y Disc. R. ___ (2018)

Find in article:     | 

No. BD-2018-094

S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension/Stayed entered by Justice Budd on November 2, 2018.1

S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension/Stayed entered by Justice Budd on November 2, 2018.[1]

The respondent stipulated to a three-months suspension, stayed for one year, for excessively billing three clients. The misconduct included billing at a lawyer’s rate for administrative tasks. The Supreme Judicial Court approved the stipulation and imposed certain conditions, including that the respondent resolve a fee arbitration matter with one of the clients. In mitigation, the respondent had refunded to the other two clients some of the fees that they had paid.

SUMMARY[2]

The respondent is the proprietor and chief executive officer of a law firm. This matter arises out of three separate client relationships in which the respondent, either as the senior attorney assigned to a case or as the person responsible for establishing the firm’s billing policies and for reviewing and approving firm invoices, charged and collected clearly excessive fees in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a).

In the first such case, a client retained the respondent’s firm in April 2016 to represent him in opposing the extension of an existing 209A restraining order that his wife had obtained. The client also retained the firm to represent him in a complaint for divorce. The client executed identical forms of hourly fee agreements for both engagements. Among other provisions, the agreements provided for fees of $225 per hour for “work performed by the Paralegals, Legal Assistants and Administration.”

During the representation, the firm presented to the client four bills in the restraining order matter and five invoices in the divorce matter. The bills in both matters included time entries in which the firm charged $225 per hour for routine administrative tasks. These tasks included uploading documents to the client's electronic file, preparing documents for “dispatch,” and reviewing the firm’s calendar to coordinate meeting dates with the client. The $225 hourly rate for administrative tasks was clearly excessive.

For work performed during the period of April 12, 2016 to May 16, 2016, the firm charged the client $5,639.70 on the restraining order matter and $21,058.84 on the divorce matter. Such fees were clearly excessive. The respondent’s firm represented the client for just over one month in both matters before the client terminated the representation.

In the second case, a client retained the respondent’s firm to represent her in regard to a modification of a child support agreement and the termination of the father’s custodial rights. This representation was pursuant to a written fee agreement that contained substantially the same terms as in the first case, including a $225 hourly rate for administrative tasks.

The firm’s activities in the client’s case primarily focused on third-party financial discovery. During the course of the engagement, the firm presented the client with 34 invoices for services. The bills included numerous time entries in which the firm charged $225 per hour for administrative tasks such as creating watermarked drafts of documents, highlighting portions of exhibits for readability, arranging dates for meetings, calendaring deadlines, and calling the court for information. The $225 hourly rate for administrative tasks was clearly excessive.

The firm represented the client for eight months and charged the client a total of $214,186.27. In May 2016, prior to trial or other resolution of the case, the client terminated the representation. The total fee was clearly excessive.

In the third matter, a building subcontractor retained the respondent’s firm in October 2014 to collect a total of $14,456 allegedly owed to him for work on three separate construction projects. The engagement was pursuant to an hourly fee agreement that, among other things, provided for a $160-per-hour charge for administrative tasks.

The firm filed a breach-of-contract and 93A action on the client’s behalf in December 2014. During the course of the engagement, which lasted approximately thirty months, the firm presented the client with seventy invoices for fees. The invoices included numerous time entries for administrative tasks such as copying, scanning, and saving emails, updating folders with documents, recording deadlines on calendars, saving deposition notes to the client’s electronic file, and updating, and printing and organizing a hard copy file index. The firm’s $160 hourly rate for these administrative tasks was clearly excessive.

In all, the firm billed the client $85,284.47 in fees for the period October 3, 2014 through April 4, 2016. This amount was clearly excessive, as it greatly exceeded the amount of money the client was attempting to collect for his work on the three construction projects. The firm also charged an unreasonable amount for case-related expenses.

In April 2016, the firm withdrew from the case at the client’s request, prior to a trial or other resolution of the matter.

By charging clearly excessive fees and unreasonable expenses in these matters as described above, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a).

In aggravation, the respondent received a prior discipline in 2016 for unrelated misconduct. In mitigation, the respondent agreed to refund substantial portions of the fees paid by each of the affected clients.

This matter came before the Board of Bar Overseers on Respondent’s Amended Answer to Petition for Discipline and Stipulation of Parties. The parties jointly recommended a three-month suspension, stayed for one year, with certain conditions. On October 15, 2018, the Board voted to accept the parties’ stipulation and recommendation of a sanction. On November 2, 2018, the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County ordered that the respondent be suspended for a term of three months, stayed for a period of one year upon the following conditions: (a) that the respondent present proof to bar counsel that the civil claim of the third client has been fully resolved through arbitration or mediation, with a resulting refund of no less than $40,000; (b) that the respondent obtain an audit from the Law Office Management Assistance Program and follow its recommendations; and (c) that the respondent attend the CLE program "How to Make Money and Stay Out of Trouble" at its next scheduled session.



[1] The complete order of the Court is available by contacting the Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County.

[2] Compiled by the Board of Bar Overseers based on the record filed with the Supreme Judicial Court.