## Facts

- Charles L. Dorothy, a South Dakota attorney, represented Thayer and Cindy Hoover in a contentious custody and child-support matter involving Cindy’s four children.
- Dorothy accepted a $500 retainer at $100/hour, did not prepare a written fee agreement, and stated unused retainer funds would be refunded.
- Dorothy later told Cindy the case could cost as much as $10,000, but by August 1994 the Hoovers had paid about $47,300 and incurred significant debt to continue paying.
- Dorothy ultimately asserted fees of about $45,100 and costs of about $17,550 (about $62,650 total).
- When Cindy wanted to stop, Dorothy told her (1) she would recover all attorney’s fees if she continued and won, and (2) if she stopped she would owe Dorothy’s fees plus the opposing attorney’s fees and past and future child support; these statements were found legally unfounded and materially misleading.
- The matter involved extensive litigation activity, including 23 depositions and a six-day hearing, but ended in a negotiated settlement splitting custody and applying statutory child-support guidelines.
- The Hoovers refused to pay a remaining balance; Dorothy sued for additional fees and lost.
- The Disciplinary Board charged Dorothy with multiple Rules of Professional Conduct violations; a referee found violations but recommended a private reprimand.

## Issues

1. Whether Dorothy violated professional conduct rules by charging an unreasonable fee and failing to adequately communicate the fee basis and litigation risks, including through misleading statements about fee recovery and consequences of stopping the case.
2. What sanction was appropriate given the violations and the referee’s recommendation of a private reprimand.

## Decision

- The court found Dorothy committed multiple ethical violations, including charging an unreasonable fee and failing to adequately communicate and competently advise the clients about fees and financial consequences.
- The court stated it gives no particular deference to the referee’s recommended sanction, though it may credit factual findings.
- The court rejected a private reprimand as insufficient and imposed public discipline.

## Legal Principles

- An attorney fee must be reasonable in light of relevant factors, including the nature of the matter, time and labor, and the results obtained; disproportional fees may constitute misconduct.
- Lawyers must communicate the basis or rate of the fee and provide clients accurate, competent advice about material financial consequences of litigation choices.
- Materially misleading statements about potential fee shifting or the consequences of terminating litigation violate duties of competence and truthful client communication.
- In attorney discipline, the supreme court independently determines the appropriate sanction to protect the public and the integrity of the profession.

## Conclusion

The court publicly disciplined Dorothy after concluding that his excessive charges, inadequate fee communication, and misleading advice about fee recovery and financial exposure in family-law litigation constituted serious professional misconduct warranting more than a private reprimand.


In re Discipline of Dorothy, 605 N.W.2d 493 (S.D. 2000)