Client Warning Flags (In Re Keck)

The facts giving rise to a recent Report and Recommendations of the Hearing Board of the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission in In re Keck, No. 06 CH 90 (March 6, 2009), shows a primary "warning flag" of a client that cannot be unsatisfied:

Catherine … and William Murphy were married on November 18, 1988 and divorced in February 2003. After the divorce action was filed in 1998, Catherine was represented by several different attorneys. She described herself as a client who was very involved, and "hands-on." In the spring of 2002, when Catherine’s divorce proceedings had been ongoing for four years and after the court ruled that a prenuptial agreement was valid, she decided that her current attorney … was overwhelmed by the case and needed the assistance of another attorney.

Id. at 2.  Four years, and several attorneys on, Catherine wanted the assistance of a new lawyer.  As Gomer Pyle would have said:  "Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!"  Guess who was the subject of a grievance? 

Hat tip to the Legal Profession blog.

posted by Gary Rosin

Leave a Reply