 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Drakulich12/19/1995
collections department. He was hired because the clinic had a very high accounts receivable problem. His job simply entailed the collection of debts that had not been paid to the clinic. Hall denied that he used his job at the clinic to methodically refer patients at the clinic to appellant. Rather, Hall stated that he has long referred "friends, acquaintances, anybody" to appellant because appellant and Hall are friends and because appellant is a "good attorney." Hall flatly denied that he has ever had any type or arrangement with appellant where he would receive a standard ten percent of the fee generated by appellant in cases that he had referred to appellant. Further, he admitted that he never submitted any bills or reports to appellant. He just telephoned in and told a secretary the results of any investigation he had conducted, When asked how his fee was determined, Hall testified:
Sir, the procedure I go through with everybody that I collect for on the side is that I ask thirty percent. I ask thirty percent for everything that I do . . . . Well, [appellant] would usually tell me that's too much. He would say, "You're too high." And I would say, "Come on, you're an affluent attorney and I'm just nobody. I'm just a collector," I said. So we would barter back and forth like a used car dealer, you know, back and forth, and [appellant] would say, "How about this?" And I would say, "Okay."
When Hall was asked to explain what he wanted thirty percent of, he could not explain whether he wanted thirty percent of the settlement, of the client's recovery, or of appellant's fee. He just knew that he received thirty percent in collections cases. Hall only knew that appellant would not cheat him. He does not have an hourly fee; he simply figured that because he received thirty percent for collecting a bad debt, he would ask for thirty percent for the other work he performed.
[111 Nev. 1556, Page 1565]
Hall then testified about each of the specific cases that the bar was concerned about. Regarding the Neff matter, Hall knew Neff through a neighbor. They became close and Neff even helped Hail move. When Neff was injured in a car accident, Neff came to Hall, and Hall tried to get him an appointment to be treated at the clinic. Hall also gave appellant's name to Neff. After Neff consulted with appellant, appellant asked Hall to run a DMV check and an asset check on the other driver. With respect to the Griffey/Sabatini matter, Hall testified that he knew the Griffeys because they worked at or knew people who worked at the clinic. They were not patients at the clinic. Hall learned that they were bit by a drunk driver and referred them to appellant. Thereafter, the Griffeys moved to California, appellant lost touch with them, and appellant used Hall to track them down. Hail also did normal investigative work on the case. He admitted that he and appellant negotiated that he would receive payment for his services amounting to ten percent of appellant's fee. Hall said that he had never before been paid exactly ten percent. Regarding the Colfer matter, Hall testified that Colfer is the stepson of Hall's sister. Hall learned that Colfer was involved in a fight with bouncers at a nightclub and referred him to appellant. Colfer was not a patient of the clinic. Again, appellant used Hall to investigate the bouncers and the club. Hall was not paid ten percent. Hall further testified that there were many cases that he had referred to appellant for which he never received any money because he did not do any work on those cases. He added that he did not get paid on cases in which there was no recovery because he did not feel that he should. Appellant also called Terry Rusk, Chief of Investigatio
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|