Monday, January 9, 2023
Recreation Of Billing Records Led To Overbilling
The Ohio Disciplinary Counsel and Respondent have reached a consent agreement for public reprimand in a case of overbilling by a court-appointed counsel for indigent defendants
Between at least 2019 and 2021, when it was time to submit a fee application form, respondent would recreate the time he had spent on a case by reviewing the case docket and his incomplete handwritten notes, and he would estimate both the time he had spent on a particular task, as well as the date on which he had performed the task.
For example, if a case involved a body camera video, respondent would review the case docket for the hearing date on which the body camera video came into question. He would then account for his time watching the video by entering time on his fee application form in an amount he believed he spent watching the video sometime during the week preceding the hearing date.
Respondent’s failure to maintain accurate and contemporaneous time records led to him filing numerous incorrect fee application forms with the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas and the Hamilton County Municipal Court that reflected excessive amounts of hours on certain days.
In early 2021, the OPD became aware that several Hamilton County attorneys were generating a significant number of hours for court-appointed work. Accordingly, the OPD conducted an audit on fee application forms submitted by those attorneys on or after January 1, 2019. (Exhibit 3.)
The OPD audit revealed that respondent submitted certified fee application forms, which asserted that he had worked more than 24 hours on the following three dates:
• June 24, 2019 (29.4 hours);
• August 7, 2019 (27 hours); and
• September 23, 2019 (25.7 hours).
(Exhibit 4; Exhibit 5; Exhibit 6; Exhibit 7.)
The OPD audit also revealed that respondent submitted certified fee application forms, which asserted that he had worked between 20 and 24 hours on the following 13 dates:
• March 7, 2019 (20.6 hours);
• May 28, 2019 (22.2 hours);
• June 12, 2019 (23.2 hours);
• June 18, 2019 (20 hours);
• July 16, 2019 (22.9 hours);
• August 15, 2019 (20.2 hours);
• September 13, 2019 (21.6 hours);
• September 18, 2019 (20 hours);
• September 26, 2019 (22.8 hours);
• January 7, 2020 (20.1 hours);4
• January 22, 2020 (20.6 hours);
• June 24, 2020 (20.3 hours); and
• August 13, 2020 (21.9 hours).
(Exhibits 4 and 8 through 20.)
Finally, the OPD audit revealed that respondent submitted certified fee application forms, which asserted that he had worked between 16 and 20 hours on the following 22 dates:
• March 28, 2019 (17.6 hours);
• July 11, 2019 (17.2 hours);
• August 3, 2019 (Saturday) (16.3 hours);
• September 16, 2019 (16.9 hours);
• November 12, 2019 (18.8 hours);
• November 18, 2019 (16 hours);
• December 9, 2019 (16.3 hours);
• December 16, 2019 (17.7 hours);
• December 17, 2019 (17 hours);
• January 8, 2020 (17.1 hours);
• January 9, 2020 (17.1 hours);
• January 28, 2020 (16.6 hours);
• February 3, 2020 (16.1 hours);
• February 5, 2020 (18.9 hours);
• June 17, 2020 (18.7 hours);
• June 18, 2020 (19.9 hours);
• June 25, 2020 (16.5 hours);
• July 28, 2020 (17.5 hours);
• July 30, 2020 (18.6 hours);
• August 10, 2020 (19.4 hours);
• August 25, 2020 (18.1 hours); and
• September 21, 2020 (16.4 hours).
(Exhibits 4 and 21 through 42.)
Respondent’s fee application forms indicate that on August 7, 2019 – the day that respondent billed for a total of 27 hours – he spent 14.1 hours “in court” on behalf of his clients even though the Hamilton County courts are only open to the public for eight hours a day (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) Monday through Friday. (Exhibits 4 and 6.)
Similarly, respondent’s fee application forms for September 23, 2019, and September 26, 2019, indicate that he spent 12.3 hours and 12.6 hours, respectively, “in court,” on behalf of his clients. (Exhibits 4, 7, and 16.)
Among the agreed mitigating factors was full restitution. (Mike Frisch)
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2023/01/the-ohio-supreme-court-has-received-a-consent-agreement-for-public-reprimand-in-a-case-of-overbilling-by-a-court-appointed-co.html