*1 1H7 Here, compound crux of Miller’s the seem to be the fraud nature the question asked in allegations. deposition the first ques makes difficult to determine which (internal N.E.3d at 96 cita- Podiatry, 71 Further, tion Roumbos answered. the first omitted). tions to the record question specific not asked was and the regard in Similarly, the seminal case foot that tripped second involved the over issue, ing Gaboury, explicit this the same deposition, wire. the second plain existed contradiction between nuanced, questions were more and thus deposition in a tiffs statements Roumbos’ were more concise. The answers in response in an affidavit averments questions deposition in the did second summary judgment. Gaboury In that foot on involve the identification Road Brethren after sued Ireland Grace which tripped. Roumbos The facts in this property he hit a cable on its and was are strikingly case different than those injured. deposition, Gaboury In the stated Podiatry Gaboury, those cases ended, he knew where road he knew unques the two statements at issue were road, at of the parking lot existed the end tionably this contradictory, and in and he intended to turn around they decidedly are less so. Road; parking lot owned Ireland only thing he indicated did know rehearing grant clarify We up[.]” a cable would be Ga was “whether Podiatry Gaboury distinction between However, in boury, 446 the facts of this case. affirm our We opposition affidavit in to Ireland Road’s original opinion respects. in all summary judgment, he stated: motion for J., J., Bailey, May, concur. lighting

4. That because and the way high fact that the cable in no

lighted, plaintiff never saw the cable

prior to the and was never accident (sic)

aware that entered

property of the Ireland Road Grace

Brethren, Inc.

ing lot of a church road; however, 6. That plaintiff ^[*] he could # ^[*] n ^[*] knew that a at the end of the ascertain park- Rene DIBENEDETTO, Appellant- Plaintiff, v. where the end the road was located. DEVEREUX, Timothy Appellee- Supreme adopted Id. Our Court Defendant Indiana long jurisdic tenet law held other Appeals No. Court Case party “If a who has been examined tions: 49A05-1609-CT-2146 length deposition could raise an issue Appeals Court Indiana. by submitting of fact an affidavit simply testimony, contradicting prior his own this June greatly utility of sum diminish the Rehearing August Denied mary judgment procedure as a for screen ing out sham issues of fact.” Id. at 1314

(quoting Research Development Perma & Co., (2d Singer v.

Co. F.2d 1969)).

Cir. *2 Pactor,

Attorney Jon Appellant: R. Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney Appellee: Timothy F. Devereux, Indianapolis, Indiana Altice, Judge. Summary

Case legal malpractice This ac is another tion from the arising theft and deceit com- agreed F. Conour former William Con- and was Conour who mitted (Conour) to the handle her case. associ- our that led downfall Devereux was an (the Firm) attorney3 Firm victim- ate the Firm DiBene- Law contract, into many the Firm’s clients.1 Rene detto entered but he ized *3 case, assigned In this not to one assist with her nor DiBenedetto is such client. perform he legal malpractice any did thereto. filed a related work Devereux, an complaint against Timothy 2010, July DiBenedetto received a practiced who once law with informing letter the Firm was Dever- Firm. DiBenedetto maintains that being transitioned to the new firm of law legal malpractice committed when he eux letter, Conour Devereux Hammond. This accurately honestly to advise failed and Conour, Devereux, is signed by which and regarding distribution of her settle- Hammond, Jeffrey following included ment funds. Devereux filed a motion statements: summary judgment2 challenging the mer- pleased are you We introduce legal malpractice its of DiBenedetto’s new law firm of Conour Ham- hearing, a trial claim. After court taking mond over which the cases and judgment granted summary LLC, Firm,' of the Conour business Law arguing appeals, motion. DiBenedetto now course, you already Of know all of us genuine pre- fact issues material you working because we have been entry in favor judgment clude your beginning. on its since of Devereux. Appellant’s Appendix, at 23.4 In Vol. 2 affirm. We stated, closing, the letter look ‘We forward History Facts & Procedural continuing you to work with severely injured you of your conclusion claim. If have was matter, 21, April questions a collision on 2010. On head-on wish discuss this 26, 2010, April please Despite into one of DiBenedetto entered a call us.” Id. contingent-fee Firm. Di change, contract with the name maintains personal in the ownership Benedetto a connection to did interest 2. nearly years, appeal "know- This is In the 1.For Conour the second this case. thirteen ingly participated devised and in a scheme appeal, first the limita this court addressed to obtain and funds contract, defraud and from attorney-client tions clause in the materially clients his and others means ultimately affirming the of Devereux’s denial representa- pretenses, false and fraudulent tions, summary judgment. See first motion for Dev Love, promises.” Devereux v. 30 (Ind. DiBenedetto, 842 Ct. ereux v. 45 N.E.3d 754, 2015) (record App. Ct. 2015). omitted), (hereinafter, citation trans. denied Love). Part of Conour's scheme was that he Attorney 3. of his Associate Under terms behalf would receive settlement funds on "always Agreement, agreed exer- unlawfully some clients and then- convert such professional cise his on behalf best his funds to own use and benefit or "comply applica- of all with all clients” and clients, payments to make settlement to other laws, rules, regulations the Rules ble stole, misap- was It determined that performance of Conduct in Professional propriated', unlawfully converted Appendix 74. Vol. at duties.” $4,500,000 belonging use more than own 2013, 15, July than 25 clients. Con- more On excerpts 4. These are taken front letter pled guilty in court to our federal one count main- was sent to James Love. subsequently of wire He was fraud. sentenced prison pay letter. months in and ordered to tains that she received the same Id. restitution to the client-victims. Firm, signatory concerning on of the set- was never the Firm’s Conour distribution accounts, ac- bank was already tlement received. cess to the Firm’s financial records. UIM claim was settled DiBenedetto’s Ultimately, DiBenedetto’s accident 2011, in September and the settlement filing claims were settled without the 11, check was dated October $50,000 The first settlement for lawsuit.5 check was someone other endorsed paid by company the insurance for the deposited than DiBenedetto7 and into the signed tortfeasor. DiBenedetto a Release 2011, on It Firm’s account October Rights in Full of All Claims on Janu later, six until weeks November 13, 2011, ary right but reserved the presented DiBenedetto was maintain claim underinsured motorist *4 signed a of all claims to final release (UIM) coverage against her insurance own of UIM claim. It ize the settlement company. undisputed partici that Devereux did not 2011, During the of summer DiBene- pate or assist in the of this settlement detto, father, along by with her stopped claim or that he knowledge there inquire the Firm unannounced to about of. January settle disbursement office,

ment. Conour was in the but 2011, In December Devereux became Devereux, being only attorney present pract concerned about Conour’s business day, agreed to speak that with her. After result, resigned ices.8 As a from he consulting paralegal the Firm’s 22, Firm on December 2011. DiBenedetto reviewing case-management the Firm’s from never received funds the settle software, Devereux met with DiBenedetto ment of claims. It either was later regarding the status of her Specifi case. misappropri that determined Conour cally, acknowledged January settle ated re DiBenedetto’s settlement funds ment and noted there were medical from tortfeasor settlement ceived both the pending liens6 and a claim. UIM Devereux UIM settlement. explained “typically ... with cases 27, 2011, On December Devereux pending like this” the UIM claim “had Supreme1 contacted the Indiana Court Dis be before the settled” medical liens could ciplinary express his con thereafter, Commission negotiated be and that the re 2012, funds, January cerns about maining any, settlement if Conour. (FBI) Investigation distributed her. Id. at 101. He further Federal Bureau up concerning advised DiBenedetto follow contacted an investi- Devereux Firm, 2011, to the if Pursuant contract with the 8.In December aware became filing prior the matter was resolved of a promptly attor- Conour had not remitted complaint, the fees were to be twen- ney co- fees to a law firm had served as ty-five percent gross recovery of the obtained. yet counsel on he had not a case and that proceeds forwarded to a client 15, Report 6. A Code June 2011 Value dated wrongful death after disbursement had action expenses itemizes medical received approved by probate court. Firm services to DiBenedetto as also statements became aware inaccurate date, a result of the Di- accident. As of that report financing to a com- made expenses Benedetto's medical $34,857.12. totaled pany used the Firm. 7. Devereux that he maintains did not endorse by signing the settlement check DiBenedetto’s name.

H21 Tharp, able inferences. Williams v. failure to fund gation regarding Conour’s (Ind. 2009). 756, to clients as struc- trusts he described N.E.2d When the trial tured' annuities. Devereux made granted summary judgment, court has wrongdoing of any potential aware other nonmoving party has on appeal the burden criminal- on behalf Conour. Conour was persuading grant us that the of sum- April ly charged federal court Adams, mary judgment was in error. guilty one count of pled and later wire fraud. Law, “Under el 11, 2013, Indiana

On October (1) malpractice complaint against legal for le ements are: em filed a gal malpractice, alleging ployment attorney, that Devereux of an which creates a fiduciary negligent, client; (2) breached to the failure of the attor duties, obli and breached his contractual ney to exercise skill and knowl by not gations providing her with accurate (breach (3) edge duty); of the about dis inquired information negligence proximate was the cause during bursement of her settlement funds (4) damage Kirk Van v. plaintiff.” to the 23, 2016, March the summer of 2011. On Miller, 869 N.E.2d Ct. *5 instant motion for sum Devereux filed the 2007) (quoting Clary v. Lite Machines that, mary as a matter judgment, arguing Corp., 423, (Ind. App. 850 430 Ct. N.E.2d duty he any of law he did not breach owed 2006)), trans. denied. “A defendant is enti court to DiBenedetto. The trial held a judgment as a matter of law when tled 2, 11, hearing September on July 2016. On negate material undisputed the facts 2016, the trial court an order entered plaintiffs least of the claim.” one element of granting summary judgment favor Clary, 850 N.E.2d findings trial no Devereux. The court made in “Adequate communication and basis for of fact not set forth the and did dealing clients is a vital tegrity when appeals. its decision. now Ad DiBenedetto any attorney-client of relation component necessary. ditional facts will be 1257, Levy, Matter ship.” 726 N.E.2d of Decision Discussion & (Ind. 2000). goes 1259 It therefore without argues that the trial saying owed a that Devereux summary judg in granting court erred truthful, accurate, duty provide her with in favor of Devereux. We review an ment information he non-misleading judgment de granting summary order of during the met with her summer ArvinMeritor, Inc., 48 v. Adams novo. See Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 2015). (Ind. Summary App. N.E.3d Ct. 1.4(a)(2) attorneys to (requiring “reason if, reviewing judgment appropriate is after the client about the ably consult with evidence, designated genu no the “there is objectives are means which the client’s and ... any ine issue as to material fact 1.4(b) Prof. R. accomplished”); Cond. moving party is to a the entitled attorneys “explain a (noting that are 56(C). a of Rule as matter law.” Ind. Trial reasonably necessary extent matter the A is if fact material its resolution permit the client to make informed deci the of and an affect outcome the representation”). regarding sions the We if genuine issue is a fact is re trier law, however, conclude as a matter quired parties’ differing ac resolve the circumstances, given Devereux did truth, undisputed if counts or duty. breach support conflicting material facts reason- this act, particular a or Whether consult further advised DiBenedetto directly omission amounts of an regarding breach attor with Conour the. dis- ney’s duty generally of fact is as- question bursement her settlement. He also Lenn, jury. Oxley for v. claim serts of DiBenedetto’s crux 2004). However, Ct. that he or “knew should have known question mishandling breach can law become a [her] CONOUR was set- undisputed proceeds” are where facts tlement in- and should so single her during inference can be drawn therefrom. he with her formed when met the summer Appellee’s Appendix Id. of 2011. at 21. Devereux directs us to Love and argues that argues that .the obtains. same result provide breached underlying truthful information. claim Love and accurate She as arose wrong out of type of deceit and same serts: Cpnour doing by precipitated the in or supple- never corrected [Devereux] .2008, August .shortly stant action. In after gave. he mented the advice that .For joined Firm, the Loves hired example, he knew that Conour had personal- the Firm to in a represent them “promptly” money distributed injury had, subsequently action. Devereux was the first from. assigned, Conour, work on “promptly” pro- care notified health Loves’ he also ease and identified as subrogee settlement. He vider attorney of to the court. record When or should have that there knew known employment.with terminated obligation no legal wait the Firm in December informed completion the underinsurance departure Loves generally of his before be distributed. claim could *6 form.indicating the signed Loves .their nothing He that knew had distrib- Firm desire that Conour and the continue left from either settlement when he uted them, represent at that the firm in December 2011. Even time, nothing prob- he said to her about After the Con- Loves discovered money. handling lems with the of misconduct, they complaint our’s filed against legal malpractice, al Devereux Appellant’s at 23-24. DiBenedetto Brief leging that them he failed to of Con- warn attorney, designated of who an affidavit an potential wrongdoing. our’s trial court The opined “inaccurately repre- that Devereux denied motion there no con- sented that reason for Devereux’s appealed. In con inquired cern” sidering whether Devereux breached his why her settlement been distribut- had duty to exercise skill knowl claim ed six after she settled the months edge representation relation company. the tortfeasor’s with insurance Loves, the not to this court was careful the Appellant’s Appendix, 123. In at Vol. “through the the lens matter consider attorney’s have opinion, Devereux should hindsight,” on but rather focused what protect taken some actions alleged he Devereux knew the time was at by advising investigating further and by failing malpractice to have committed she may that not want wait for distribu- Conour’s, potential to warn Loves already tion of the settlement Love, wrongdoing. been received. argues designated he revealed evidence . court that while Devereux had con-

DiBenedetto with accurate information

H23 , hey relating to that he spoke only cerns Conour’s actions on about with Firm, suspicions explained one when he operation of the re- occasion her the of her case practices. The status as outlined in Firm’s poor business lated management system. on these designated noted Based court further facts, Devereux asserts that did not he supported Devereux’s asser- evidence also . any duty breach owed to DiBenedetto and specific tion not have did thus, properly granted court sum- trial by knowledge wrongdoing Conour relat- judgment in mary his favor. Loves, ing mishandling cases, wrongdoing or any other active than points factual differ delaying This court concluded: payments. in arguing ences that Love is inapposite designated outlining evidence Dev- Specifically, this case. [t]he DiBenedetto notes knowledge at the time he termi- that Conour ereux’s settled the Loves’ with claim permission their employment the Firm is out and stole their from nated after to create material months Devereux left the firm while insufficient issue of her settled with her regards to Devereux both claims were fact whether known,.that knowledge knew, prior depar should even ture. DiBenedetto asserts “the most Conour breach trust instilled that, critical distinction” is unlike by by stealing client him his clients Loves, “sought information directly funds. why her from [Devereux] about Thus, Love, 30 this court N.E.3d at 765. January been distributed.” to not decision dis- held that Devereux’s Brief cuss his concerns Loves did to a to warn amount breach analysis Our focuses potential-wrongdoing. Loves of Conour’s meeting and Dever- between DiBenedetto the trial This court therefore reversed during eux of 2011. summer DiBene- court’s determination and remanded with stopped the Firm It detto unannounced. trial court sum- instructions that the enter not in just happened so that Conour mary judgment favor Devereux. day, the office Devereux was. but nothing knew though Even Loves, Like the DiBenedetto was case, he took a DiBenedetto’s few about seeking also and is victimized *7 to parale Firm’s minutes with the confer redress from asserts Devereux. Devereux manage gal Firm’s case and the review despite that the factual be differences to respect her case. ment with the tween Loves’ scenario and the instant DiBenedetto Devereux then met action, analysis to this in Love court’s as her the status of informed her about duty whether he to Di breached a owed case—confirming the settlement applicable. Benedetto is He maintains that noting that there claim tortfeasor and also designated evidence, virtually his which is medical outstanding were several bills/ his relating identical evidence UIM claim. There is pending liens and Love, knowledge designated that was no information Devereux dispute that the shows that he not was aware Conour’s provided was accurate. n wrongdoing at the time he consulted with To Devereux of her advised DiBenedetto about distribution extent settled” proceeds. that be settlement Devereux further em claim “had UIM distributed, we assigned money phasizes that he was before would never support not de work on conclude that he did that such does DiBenedetto’s breached perform any not work on that Devereux DiBenedetto’s termination. result, duty provide with accurate and as a in the trust duty information or to exer- breached promptly.” account “should have delivered knowledge. skill Appel- cise Appellant’s Vol. at 121. In Appendix Appendix lant’s 2 at 101. Devereux Vol. however, reaching opinion, expert this acknowledges that he told as, assumptions, had to make such certain hers, “typically” in all that cases complete, the Firm’s records were claims “had be settled” before the medi- received, that all medical bills had been negotiated cal liens would be that the claim be set- UIM would and/or remaining thereafter would the settlement prior filing complaint. tled to the of a funds, any, sup- if be disbursed her. provide was to DiBene- port position, designated of his Devereux detto with accurate information and he did the form of an affida- evidence just that. To the extent the information “[ijt practice vit that is common that medi- provided not DiBenedetto did cal or not frequently bills liens are re- satisfactorily question regard- answer her payment solved of limits ing the distribution the first carrier, underlying particularly tortfeasor’s speak advised her to proceeds, if or significant portion the bills liens are a Conour, directly with been re- who had underlying tortfeasor’s settlement.” sponsible beginning. for the case since the Appendix S at Vol. 99. Given argument DiBenedetto’s that Dev- that at time Devereux had no reason ereux knew should have known any wrongdoing suspect by Conour with something was amiss he reviewed funds, regard to DiBenedetto’s settlement file is based a view of the regard in this not inaccu- his advice they facts as existed the time of her necessarily misleading. rate or meeting through with Devereux the lens designated evidence DiBenedetto’s hindsight. Now armed with the knowl designated does not contradict Devereux’s edge that Conour misappropriated evidence to that it common the effect settlements, she seeks reach back practice to wait until all claims are settled knowing time blame a settlement is before disbursed. DiBene- that her settlement funds expert simply opines detto’s that Devereux time, At properly safeguarded. Dev- known,” or should have Id. at “knew gathered ereux had basic information something because amiss about DiBenedetto’s case as reflected “promptly” disbursed the settle the Firm’s records in paid ment funds to cover medical liens and formation to her. pursuant balance 1.15(d).9 regard explana Prof. R. With to Devereux’s Cond. DiBenedetto’s ex tion pert opines that to DiBenedetto that Devereux breached his *8 duty by failing settled, to advise DiBenedetto that wait until her UIM claim was such there to pay was sufficient what was consistent with Devereux consid providers any practice such, health care hens and resolve ered common and as the fact 1.15(d) provides: promptly 9. Prof. per- Cond. R. deliver to the client or third any property son funds or other that the Upon receiving property funds or other in person client or is third entitled to receive person which the client or has an third and, interest, upon request by the or notify client third lawyer promptly shall person, promptly person. Except client or shall render a full ac- third as stated in permitted by counting regarding property. this rule or otherwise law or client, by agreement lawyer (Emphasis supplied). shall

H25 yet again him to once against that the settlement had be distribut- defend himself flags. raise further already did not red We an issue decided in ed Love. ques- note that to the extent there were illustrates, As the above discussion beyond the of information

tions overview entirely disposi- the Love decision was not about DiBenedetto’s case contained light tive of the issue in this case of the records, Firm’s DiBene- advised different factual circumstances. there We speak directly detto with Conour as he fore appeal do not find that the frivo was on one who had worked Moreover, or brought lous in bad faith. we knew the details thereof. Under challenged conclude that the averment is of this the facts conclude as a we not so it supports scandalous an not matter of law that Devereux did attorney request award of fees. Devereux’s skill breach exercise is denied. or knowledge provide Judgment affirmed. non-misleading accurate and informa- Having designated tion. concluded that the J., Riley, concurs. evidence establishes Devereux did DiBenedetto, any duty owed to we breach J., Crone, dissents with opinion. grant trial affirm the court’s Crone, favor Devereux. Judge, dissenting. Attorney Fees I respectfully dissent from the ma jority’s summary judgment affirmance of requests an award majority favor. The as pursuant fees and other sanctions sumes, deciding, attorney- without that an Appellate provides: Rule which to Ind. relationship client existed between Dever- Damages or G. Frivolous Bad DiBenedetto, solely eux and who had dealt Filings. may The Court assess Faith 2011. I with Conour until the summer of appeal, petition, if an or mo- damages assumption, agree impor with this but is tion, or in response, or is frivolous bad attorney- of an tant note that “[c]reation Damages shall in the Court’s faith. be relationship dependent upon client may attorneys’ discretion include employment of an signing the formal The Court shall the ease fees. remand payment agreement upon or attor for execution. attorney-client ney relationship An fees. disposi- Devereux asserts that the express, may implied but be need knowledge tive issue—his Conour’s by parties.” of the Matter conduct wrongdoing—was previously decided 1995). Anonymous, 655 N.E.2d this court in Love and that no new *9 nonmoving to as the attorney Devereux maintains that fees are vorable DiBenedetto 2010, July in Dever- given persist party warranted that establishes that DiBenedetto eux, Conour, signed a letter asserting forcing a and Hammond position, ed baseless 1126 applicable

to on the.Firm’s breached stan- letterhead stated, care, of continuing repre- part are dard on his that based in belief “[W]e and, your attorneys!!,]” you sent as that or should have known “We Devereux knew look not complied work with that Conour had with Profes- continuing forward your you 1.15(d) of If you to the claim. Rule and Dev- conclusion Conduct that sional any questions or wish to discuss this advised ac- ereux should have matter, 1.15(d) states, of please Appel- cordingly. call one us.” Rule According Di- lant’s App. Vol.'2 Upon receiving property funds or other affidavit, sometime Benedetto’s after person client or which the third has letter, that “that received told her' interest, lawyer promptly an shall noti- attorneys working all of the be would fy Except the client or person. third as Appellant’s App. Vol. 3 at 29 [her] case.” or permits in this rule stated otherwise added). (emphasis When DiBenedetto vis- by agreement or ted with the law of ited the Firm summer ask client, lawyer promptly shall deliver about “the settlement case” [her] and person or or the client third any funds be receiving pay- “when would [she] other that client or property third ments[,]” Devereux “did not tell [her] and, person upon to receive is entitled employee or [she] he was an request person, the client third rely on him.” Id. at 29. In could accounting full promptly render a shall response inquiry, to DiBenedetto’s Dever- regarding property. eux told her she “would be receiv- added.) (Emphasis ing money until the liens been had taken During with meeting DiBenedet- least, very care of.” Id. at 30. At the this to, aware Devereux became genuine is sufficient to create a evidence $50;000 settlement check from the tortfea- issue of as to an material fact whether deposited sor Conour’s trust attorney-client be- relationship existed account at least five months earlier and tween DiBenedetto. DiBenedetto’s bills medical ser attorney, As DiBenedetto’s Dever- (the vices last of which had been rendered general duty her eux owed exercise earlier) at least six months totaled less knowledge. skill and re In Estate $35,000. Thus, also became than (Ind. Lee, 954 N.E.2d Ct. promptly aware that Conour had not deliv 2011), (2012). And, trans. denied funds that she ered majority acknowledges, “goes with to receive. See Matter Hel was entitled saying” that he “a out her owed 1994) mer, (finding 634 N.E.2d’ truthful, accurate, provide her with violated Ind. Professional non-misleading met information when he by waiting Rule three Conduct 1.15 months during Op. the- summer 2011.” r portion delive client’s (citing Ind. Professional Conduct funds). deposition, In Devereux testi 1.4(a)(2) 1.4(b)). majority Rules that he and her fa fied told DiBenedetto as a concludes matter law that Dever- haye “they ther that to ask Mr. duty. eux not breach this I respectfully did get would be they Conour” about “when disagree. ting payments” “explained typically response if there support happened Dev- what cases this like liens, motion, summary, judgment ereux’s DiBen- both cases were medical settled, experi underlying edetto submitted the affidavit lawsuit and the claim, practicing attorney enced that UIM the medical bill liens opined who then

H27 “generally, negotiations with the be resolved” ins and outs and professional settlements responsi- Appellant’s system works.” that’s how attorneys bilities of legally who are experienced Another Vol. ethically obligated to protect their in- practicing attorney who submitted affi- Consequently, imperative terests. is for summary support davit in of Devereux’s attorneys comply with Con- Professional position. motion took a similar 1.15(d) Rule promptly duct and either dis- Simply 3 at App. Vol. be- tribute funds to which their clients are attorneys “generally” cause handle certain or, minimum, indisputably at entitled mean way a certain does not cases advise them of their right to receive those complies procedure always funds. on the Based evidence most favor- adopted by Professional Conduct Rules nonmoving able DiBenedetto par- as the highest our state’s court. I ty, genuine believe issues material regarding fact exist whether argument, At oral Devereux con provide breached his $10,000 of that a ceded minimum of truthful, accurate, non-misleading $50,000 settlement was unencumbered regarding handling information Conour’s any potential attorney medical liens or of the tortfeasor’s settlement funds and fees, legal impediment that there nowas funds, present right receive as those distributing that to DiBenedetto at amount any proximately well whether breach time, alleged damages relating and that he did advise her caused Therefore, I those funds.11 would reverse present right had a to receive judg- the trial grant court’s funds. See Oral Arg. those at 22:29-24:21.10 favor, trial, ment in for remand Devereux’s so, Had he done DiBenedetto could have deny request for for and the funds from asked received fees. Conour, might put or she have been something notice that sinister was afoot relationship with Con-

and terminated her important It to remember

our. that her still in account

funds were Conour’s trust

at that time. plaintiffs injury

Personal are often

strapped cash and credi hounded they

tors while for their cases to be wait They are also often

resolved. unfamiliar any knowledge 10. Devereux conceded that or had of Conour’s sub- also subse- edetto quent nego- claim, reduction of the bills via medical sequent settlement of her UIM I do not providers tiations with care could health may proxi- believe be considered larger recovery resulted in DiBene- receive those mate cause her failure to Arg. Oral detto. See 23:03-23:15. funds. Dever- 11. Because there is no evidence that eux DiBen- further involvement with notes relationships have “Attorney-client presented in this case that evidence or implied person seeks advice where holding. would have effect attorney, where the assistance from further asserts that to matters sought pertains within advice even resorted scandalous accusations competence, attorney’s professional alleging complaint in her that he “effec attorney gives and where the desired knowingly ... tively and assisted Id. advice assistance.” violate the Rules Professional Con most fa Appendix, designated II evidence duct.” Vol.