In re Dorothy

Charles Dorothy (defendant) was licensed to practice law in South Dakota. Dorothy practiced for 20 years, including in state government offices, without receiving any valid ethical complaints. Thayer Hoover approached Dorothy for child-support information. Thayer’s wife, Cindy, had full legal custody of her four children from a prior marriage, but the children spent considerable time with their father, Mike Grages. The parents disagreed about custody and support. Dorothy agreed to represent the Hoovers, requesting a $500 retainer and stating he would refund unused amounts. Months later, Dorothy told Cindy the developing custody and child-support matter could cost up to $10,000. As Dorothy’s fees grew, the Hoovers took out a bank loan and a credit-card advance to make payments. At one point, Cindy told Dorothy she wanted to stop the proceedings. Dorothy incorrectly told her that (1) if she continued and won, she would recover all his attorney’s fees, and (2) if she stopped, she would have to pay all his fees, the opposing attorney’s fees, and past and future child support. Cindy then agreed to proceed. The matter had some factual complexity, but the applicable law was relatively established. Dorothy spent significant time obtaining and reviewing evidence and drafting briefs. The court held a six-day hearing before the parties voluntarily agreed to split custody. Support issues were resolved by applying statutory guidelines. Dorothy charged the Hoovers a total of about $45,000 in fees and $17,500 in costs, totaling $62,500. The Hoovers refused to pay the last $14,000 of this amount. Dorothy sued for the unpaid balance, but the court ruled for the Hoovers. The Hoovers filed a complaint with the state bar. The bar’s disciplinary board (board) (plaintiff) found Dorothy had violated multiple ethical rules by underexplaining key fee matters and overworking the case. The board concluded Dorothy had used discovery and trial tactics that complicated and prolonged the proceedings rather than helping the Hoovers achieve their goals. The board filed a disciplinary action with the South Dakota Supreme Court, seeking public censure or reprimand. A judicial referee agreed with the board’s findings but recommended a private reprimand. Dorothy agreed to stop handling family-law matters but did not acknowledge or admit any misconduct. The supreme court considered whether to discipline Dorothy.