Howard Fellows, Esq.

BREAKER AND FELLOWS LLC

Attorneys at Law

320 E. D Street

Ontario, CA 91763

September 15, 2021

Helen Lemons

1414 Thornhill Drive

South Covina, CA 90000

Dear Ms. Lemons,

I hope you are well. It was brought to my attention that you require advice on a situation regarding your client on an account of violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in California. In this letter, I present to you a breakdown of the events from a legal point of view. The aim of the analysis is to assist with maintaining objectivity for your benefit. I will look at the matter with impartiality in order to provide to you the best advice possible based on the case facts. As described to me, your client (Mr. Raymond) claims that you received a gift from him contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct in California. The client further complains that the gift was a coercion and that you took advantage of his situation. I will review these issues thoroughly and provide a legal position that I see fit for the situation.

Brief Summary of the Facts

Mr. Charles Raymond sought your (Ms. Lemons) services, a criminal law attorney specializing in juvenile cases. Mr. Raymond was seeking legal services for his son Marco Raymond who was arrested on charges of vandalism, theft, and criminal mischief. At the time of the arrest, Marco was 16 years old. Recent developments on the case have seen the District Attorney’s office file a motion to try Marco as an adult.

You (Ms. Lemons) came highly recommended. A visit to your office by Mr. Raymond led to a discussion where it was made clear that you were too busy to represent Marco. Mr. Raymond offered to pay double your fee to which you refused. However, it is recorded that you offered to take on the case should a contribution be made to your charity, Lemons for All, by your client Mr. Raymond so as to free up your time. Mr. Raymond dropped a cashier’s check for your charity later, in the amount of $15,000.00.

Your office later represented Marco Raymond in court, where your attempt to persuade the judge to allow Marco’s case to be heard in a juvenile court was unsuccessful. Mr. Raymond later wrote to you indicating an intention to report you to the State Bar of California on allegedly accepting a gift from a client which would constitute to a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Constitution of a Gift

Under Rule 1.8.3 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, the rules and regulations prohibit lawyers from soliciting clients to provide a substantial gift. The rules also recognize gifting a lawyer through someone else related to the attorney. A gift here represents any form of favor or actions benefiting the lawyer whether directly for personal gain or indirectly through related entities.

From the case facts presented above, you (Ms. Lemons) solicited a favor from Mr. Raymond with the promise of representing Marco Raymond. In a statement “I’m your son’s only hope, so you should really consider a large donation”, you persuaded a rather hesitant client to send money to your foundation (a related entity as per Rule 1.8.3 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct) in order to free up your time for easier representation. Upon receipt of the monetary contribution to your foundation, you begun the process of representing your client.

From the constitution of a gift definition provided under Rule 1.8.3 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, there is evidence of solicitation of a gift and a demand for said monetary contribution before Mr. Raymond’s son could be represented. Further, the gift is described by you as a condition for representation and a promise for a successful court hearing.

Standards of Fairness and Undue Influence

Under Rule 1.8.3 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, it is established that a lawyer may accept gifts from clients subject to standards of fairness and the absence of undue influence. Standards of fairness mean that no party is coerced to accept or provide a gift. It also means that the gifting process is aligned to legal requirements and the provisions of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Standards of fairness also point to a need to ensure that the gift is not related to unethical activities, whether from the lawyer or the client and any of their related entities. From the facts of this case, standards of fairness were violated. The client was openly required to provide a gift so as to open up time for representation. The condition provided was not generally within the standards of fairness expected where a lawyer interacts with a client.

Absence of undue influence means that no party has been excessively influenced to offer or receive a gift of any kind. The facts of the case point to a situation where Mr. Raymond was induced to act contrary to what his free will would dictate. His initial hesitance shows that he was influenced into the decision without paying adequate attention to all of the consequences. Mr. Raymond was made to believe that the gift would not only open up time for representation in a court but would also see that his son is tried in a juvenile court. In this regard, there is evidence of undue influence.

Conclusion

In summary, this letter presents a breakdown of the events from a legal point of view with an aim of analyzing the content to assist with maintaining objectivity for your benefit and to offer a legal standpoint on the matter. Your client (Mr. Raymond) claims that you received a gift from him contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct in California. From the case facts, the analysis indicates that first, there is evidence of solicitation of a gift and a demand for said monetary contribution before Mr. Raymond’s son could be represented. Second, the condition provided to Mr. Raymond was not generally within the standards of fairness expected where a lawyer interacts with a client. Third, there is evidence of undue influence. Conclusively, it seems that you consciously solicited, received, and accepted a gift from a client. My objective opinion of the case is that you are in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in California.

Sincerely,

Howard Fellows