In re Discipline of Hale

Leila Hale (defendant) was licensed to practice law in Nevada. Hale had her paralegal visit potential personal-injury clients at their homes. The paralegal would present forms and agreements, explain them, and ask the clients to sign. The forms included HIPAA releases, insurance forms, a power of attorney authorizing the firm to act for the client, and a retainer agreement. The retainer agreement gave the firm either a percentage of the client’s recovery or, if representation ended early, a flat rate of $1,000 per hour for paralegal and attorney work. The paralegal explained to the potential clients that the forms allowed him to obtain medical records and accident reports. One potential client was a woman with two car-accident claims. The paralegal advised her to have one attorney handle both claims to avoid an attorney lien being placed on the other claim. The paralegal also explained the concept of property damage to the woman. The woman signed the forms. Consistent with the paralegal’s usual practice, he sent notices to the woman’s insurers that placed liens on future policy payments for the firm’s fees. The paralegal billed the meeting and lien work at $1,000 per hour. After a week with no contact from Hale, the woman fired the firm. The state bar (plaintiff) received complaints about Hale’s conduct and filed a disciplinary complaint with the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board (the board). This complaint included charges that Hale had violated (1) Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5 by charging unreasonable fees and (2) Rule 5.3 by using a paralegal to perform legal work. Hale argued her paralegal had not performed legal work but rather only clerical intake tasks—akin to handing client forms on a clipboard but with a more personal touch. The board found Hale had violated Rule 1.5 but not Rule 5.3 and recommended only a letter of caution. The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the recommendation.