In the Matter of Everett E. Powell, II, 2011 Ind. LEXIS 859

Respondent Everett E. Powell, II, is disciplined for collecting an unreasonable and exploitative fee from a vulnerable client, a violation of Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.5(a).
T.G., the client, had a history of substance abuse and was in an abusive relationship; a special needs trust was created to preserve public assistance eligibility and prevent rapid depletion.
Ross, the prior attorney, acted as trustee but agreed to step aside; Respondent then assumed trusteeship and control over trust assets.
Respondent prepared and deposited funds, including a $3,917.40 check from Ross, into the trust account, then issued checks that depleted the trust balance.
Respondent finalized an accounting showing a $14,815.55 fee for himself, despite the absence of legitimate tax or accounting work and a dwindling trust balance.
The hearing officer found the one-third contingent fee unreasonable; the court concluded the fee was clearly excessive under the totality of circumstances and imposed a 120-day suspension without automatic reinstatement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Powell's fee violated Rule 1.5(a).	Commission contends fee was clearly unreasonable and exploitative.	Powell argues no clear evidence of misconduct or excessive fee under the circumstances.	Yes; fee was unreasonable and exploitative.
Whether proceeds from the trust were mishandled and depleted due to Respondent's actions.	Commission asserts Respondent dissipated trust assets and benefited personally.	Powell contends any missteps were not intended to exploit or deplete assets.	Respondent engaged in conduct leading to mismanagement and depletion of trust assets.
What discipline is appropriate for this misconduct?	Commission seeks suspension based on exploitive overreaching with vulnerable client.	Powell argues for a lesser sanction or reconsideration given mitigating factors.	Suspension for 120 days without automatic reinstatement; costs assessed.

Matter of Gerard, 634 N.E.2d 51 (Ind. 1994) (suspension for collecting an unreasonable fee from an elderly, hospitalized client; emphasis on totality of circumstances)
Matter of Hefron, 771 N.E.2d 1157 (Ind. 2002) (exploitive fee awards; serious misconduct for asset recovery fees)
Matter of Thayer, 745 N.E.2d 207 (Ind. 2001) (dramatic fee increase on day of settlement; suspension without automatic reinstatement)
Matter of McCarthy, 668 N.E.2d 256 (Ind. 1996) (factors for proper sanction including nature of misconduct and integrity of the profession)
Matter of O'Farrell, 942 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. 2011) (fee violations may recur as public reprimand unless exploitation evident)
Matter of Lauter, 933 N.E.2d 1258 (Ind. 2010) (disciplinary approaches to fee-related misconduct)