## Facts

- Leila Hale was licensed to practice law in Nevada and handled personal-injury matters.
- Hale used a paralegal to visit prospective clients at their homes to conduct initial intake meetings.
- At these meetings, the paralegal presented firm documents, explained them, and obtained client signatures.
- The documents included HIPAA releases, insurance-related forms, a power of attorney authorizing the firm to act for the client, and a retainer agreement.
- The retainer agreement provided a contingency fee based on a percentage of any recovery, but stated that if the representation ended early the firm would charge a “flat rate” of $1,000 per hour for both attorney and paralegal work.
- The paralegal told prospective clients the forms would allow him to obtain medical records and accident reports.
- In one meeting, the prospective client had two automobile-accident claims. The paralegal advised her that one attorney should handle both claims to avoid an attorney lien being placed on the other claim.
- The paralegal also explained property-damage concepts to the client during the intake.
- After the client signed the documents, the paralegal (as part of his usual practice) sent lien notices to the client’s insurers asserting liens on future policy payments to secure the firm’s fees.
- The paralegal billed the intake meeting and lien work at the $1,000-per-hour rate.
- About a week later, after having no contact with Hale, the client terminated the representation.
- The State Bar of Nevada filed a disciplinary complaint alleging Hale violated NRPC 1.5 (unreasonable fees) and NRPC 5.3 (duties regarding nonlawyer assistants).
- The Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board found Hale violated NRPC 1.5, found no violation of NRPC 5.3, and recommended a letter of caution.
- The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the board’s findings and recommended discipline.

## Issues

1. Whether Hale violated NRPC 1.5 by using and attempting to collect under a retainer provision that imposed a $1,000-per-hour charge for attorney and paralegal time when the client ended the representation early.
2. Whether Hale’s use of a paralegal to conduct unsupervised in-home intake meetings—explaining legal documents and giving advice about handling claims and attorney liens—triggered Hale’s professional duties regarding nonlawyer assistants under NRPC 5.3.
3. Whether the recommended “letter of caution” was an adequate sanction in light of the misconduct found and the risk of harm to clients.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court accepted the disciplinary matter for review and independently evaluated the record and recommended sanction.
- The court agreed that Hale’s fee arrangement and attempted billing under the $1,000-per-hour early-termination provision constituted an unreasonable fee in violation of NRPC 1.5.
- The court rejected the characterization of the paralegal’s role as merely clerical “intake,” noting that the paralegal explained legal documents and gave advice that went beyond ministerial tasks, and emphasized that lawyers are responsible for ensuring nonlawyer conduct complies with professional obligations.
- The court concluded the board’s recommended letter of caution was insufficient and imposed public discipline, including a public reprimand and related conditions such as refunding/forgoing improper fees and paying disciplinary costs.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee; reasonableness is evaluated in light of the services performed and the circumstances (NRPC 1.5(a)).
- An early-termination clause that converts a contingency-fee arrangement into an extraordinary hourly rate—applied to routine intake and early lien work—may be unreasonable, particularly when it functions as a penalty for ending the attorney-client relationship.
- Clients have the right to discharge counsel; fee provisions that materially burden that right are subject to close scrutiny under NRPC 1.5.
- Lawyers must make reasonable efforts to ensure that a nonlawyer assistant’s conduct is compatible with the lawyer’s professional obligations (NRPC 5.3).
- A nonlawyer may assist with administrative tasks, but explaining the legal effect of documents and recommending actions affecting a client’s legal rights is legal work that must not be delegated in a way that substitutes for lawyer judgment.
- In attorney-discipline cases, the Nevada Supreme Court determines the proper sanction and may impose discipline more serious than that recommended by a disciplinary board to protect the public and the profession.

## Conclusion

In *In re Discipline of Hale*, the Nevada Supreme Court held that a personal-injury lawyer violated NRPC 1.5 by using and attempting to enforce a $1,000-per-hour early-termination fee for attorney and paralegal work, criticized the practice of sending a paralegal to conduct unsupervised intake that included explanations and advice, and imposed public discipline rather than the board’s recommended letter of caution.


In re Discipline of Hale, 447 P.3d 1085 (2019)