In the Matter of The Application For Disciplinary Action v. Delorme, 20100414.
| Citation | 2011 ND 40,795 N.W.2d 293 |
| Decision Date | 17 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 20100414.,20100414. |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application for DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST Bernice C. DELORME, a Member of the Bar of the State of North Dakota.Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, Petitionerv.Bernice C. Delorme, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
[¶ 1] The Supreme Court has before it Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations from a Hearing Panel of the Disciplinary Board recommending Bernice C. Delorme be suspended from the practice of law for thirty days for violating N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 and she pay $3,830 in costs of the disciplinary proceeding. We received no objections to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendations from a Hearing Panel of the Disciplinary Board. We conclude there is clear and convincing evidence Delorme violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.5, and we suspend Delorme's license to practice law for thirty days for her misconduct and order her to pay costs of the disciplinary proceeding.
[¶ 2] Bernice C. Delorme was admitted to practice law in North Dakota on April 25, 2006. On May 7, 2010, Delorme admitted service of a Summons and Petition for Discipline. The Petition asserts that from approximately June 2008 to October 2009, Delorme charged Charles B. Vondal, Sr. unreasonable fees during the course of representation.
[¶ 3] The Petition alleges Delorme's conduct in this matter violates N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.5, Fees, which provides a lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee.
[¶ 4] A Hearing Panel was appointed and the matter a hearing was held. The Hearing Panel found subsequently that Delorme had no written fee agreement with Vondal. However, she had orally agreed to an hourly rate of $125, but instead charged $175 per hour and $210 per hour for Court time. The Hearing Panel also found Delorme failed to reflect a payment by Vondal; overbilled for mileage; billed to review Veteran's Affairs medical records of the children when the children had never been to Veterans Affairs; billed Vondal more than 24 hours on June 16, 2008; and billed for time when she provided no legal services while Vondal reviewed paperwork.
[¶ 5] The Hearing Panel concluded that Delorme's conduct violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.5, Fees, which provides a lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee.
[¶ 6] In recommending a sanction, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Disciplinary Bd. of the Supreme Court of State v. Kellington (In re Application for Disciplinary Action Against Theresa L. Kellington)
...billed for overhead items, and she billed at the wrong hourly rate. This facts of this case are similar to Disciplinary Board v. Delorme, 2011 ND 40, 795 N.W.2d 293, in which we concluded the attorney violated N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.5. In Delorme, the attorney, among other things, charged a......
-
In re Lee
...attorney may not seek fees from both the Bureau and the claimant). [¶ 17] Finally, Disciplinary Counsel cites Disciplinary Board v. Delorme, 2011 ND 40, 795 N.W.2d 293, in which the hearing panel found the attorney had orally agreed to an hourly rate of $125, but instead charged $175 to $21......
-
People v. Ziankovich
...a $200.00 fee for preparation of a guardianship petition even though the lawyer never filed the petition).16 See In re Delorme , 795 N.W.2d 293, 293 (N.D. 2011) (finding that a lawyer violated Rule 1.5(a) because, among other things, she billed the client at a rate higher than what she had ......