Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Alabama State Bar v. Hallett

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 10, 2009No. 1071419 and 1071486Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMurdock, Justice

A. Reinstating the Panel’s Findings of Violations

Although I believe we should reinstate the panel’s findings as to what rules Hal-lett violated, I do not agree with all the reasoning used by the panel or by the main opinion to reach this result.

First, I am concerned that a statement in the panel’s decision could be construed as endorsing a “reasonableness” standard for the evaluation of allegedly excessive attorney fees. Second, I am concerned about the conflation of the concept of “clearly excessive fees” and the separate and different concept of “unearned fees,” a concept that relates to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1994
  2. Parsons v. AaronSupreme Court of Alabama · 2002
  3. First Properties, L.L.C. v. BennettCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2006
  4. Bess v. Waffle House, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2001
  5. Ex Parte CaseSupreme Court of Alabama · 2005

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API