Carlos the Clown was sanctioned yet again. The Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the Tennessee Bar's public censure of Grenada attorney Carlos Moore. The Bar didn't take too kindly to Mr. Moore's placing of a lien on a client after she rejected a settlement offer. The order states:
The Bar's order stated Mr. Moore's client received a settlement offer of $12,500 in a slip and fall case in February 2015. The attorney advised her to accept the offer. She agreed in writing to pay him 40% of the recovery plus expenses if recovery were made and 45% if recovery were made after appeal. The agreement stated she would be responsible for Mr. Moore's fee if she refused a reasonable settlement offer. The client refused to accept the offer. Mr. Moore withdrew from the case.
Carlos Eugene Moore (“Attorney”) entered into a written contingent fee agreement to represent a client in a personal injury matter. The agreement, which was signed by the client, provided that if the client refused to accept any settlement offer which Attorney advised her was reasonable and should be taken, the client was responsible for the contingency fee “on the basis of that offer” unless Attorney waived the provision. When Attorney received an offer to settle the matter, he advised the client to accept the offer. She refused.
Attorney filed a motion to withdraw which was granted. Attorney also sought to place a lien against the client’s eventual recovery for his fees and expenses “presently owe[d].” After the client filed a complaint with the Board of Professional Responsibility (“BPR”), the BPR filed a petition for discipline.
A hearing panel was appointed and, after an evidentiary hearing, the panel concluded that (1) Attorney had “made an agreement for and has sought to collect an unreasonable fee,” violating Rule of Professional Conduct (“RPC” or “Rule”) 1.5(a) and 1.5(c); and (2) Attorney had “violated Rule 1.8(i) because [the client] became obligated when [Attorney] advised [her] that the settlement offer . . . was ‘reasonable and should be taken.’”
The hearing panel imposed a sanction of public censure. Attorney sought review in chancery court, and the chancery court affirmed the hearing panel’s decision. Attorney then sought review in this Court, arguing that the hearing panel’s findings that he had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct were arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial and material evidence. Attorney further contends that the sanction imposed was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial and material evidence. We hold that the record supports both the findings of violations and the imposition of a public censure. Accordingly, we affirm the chancery court’s ruling upholding the hearing panel’s decision.
Carlos the Clown was gone but not departed as he asked the court to approve a "lien of $13,605 for 45 hours of work and $2,428 for expenses" against his former client. He filed an updated lien two weeks later for $18,124. The client filed a bar complaint against her former attorney in August 2015. She withdrew her lawsuit and refiled it with a new attorney. He filed yet another updated lien against her for $7.4281(40% of the settlement amount, $4,800 and expenses of $2,628.).
The Bar ruled against the Clown on August 31, 2017. It said the fee was "unreasonable" because contingency fees are allowed only upon recovery. Allowing attorneys to place liens if settlement offers were rejected by the client would have a "chilling effect" on the client's ability to pursue a lawsuit. The attorney's interest should be in representing the client, not forcing the client to accept a settlement offer she that is not in her best interests.
The Bar also didn't take too kindly to the Clown's efforts to collect liens that were more than the settlement offer. The client agreed to pay a contingency and never agreed to pay an hourly fee despite the Clown's efforts to collect such fees. The Supremes ruled that Mr. Moore couldn't have it both ways
The Bar issued a public censure against Mr. Moore. He appealed the censure to the Chancery Court. The Chancellor upheld the Bar's decision. Moore again tried to delay justice and appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Court cited RPC 1.5(a) in ruling a lawyer could only be compensated under a contingency fee arrangement "in the event of settlement, trial, or appeal." The fee agreement between the Clown and his client were instead contingent upon his recommendation of a settlement offer he "deemed reasonable." This agreement violated the rules and justified the public censure.
Kingfish note: Let's see, how many sanctions or disciplinary actions is this against Mr. Moore? Tupelo, Montgomery County, Leflore County, Belhaven.....
7 comments:
Apparently everywhere this clown practices is full of racists.
and the Mississippi Bar Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Until and unless the sanctions include disbarment, they don't cancel the Carlos show. It's simply the cost of doing business, If it's public knowledge Carlos will simply claim, very loudly, that the state is trying to silence the voice of justice. For a few people this is believable. Those people are more than enough to give Carlos a client base. Seriously.
Maybe Richie Schwartz should be advertising to sign up client sof the clown who have such provisions in their contracts of employment with him and sue to void the contract and become Richie's client.
How many sanctions before some state bar actually does something?
The Mississippi State Bar isn't going to do anything to a black lawyer. If they did that would make then appear racist.
@8:45, You have a very uninformed opinion. The Mississippi Bar has suspended many black attorneys. Knowledge is king.
Post a Comment