Legal Opinion
Matter of Lehman
Indiana Supreme Court
Decided December 31, 1997No. 49S00-9510-DI-1244PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DISCIPLINARY ACTION
2Per curiam
Today we conclude that Ind.Code Section 34-4-41-4 requires that attorney fees paid by insurers out of their subrogation recoveries enure to the insured, and not the insured’s lawyer, absent an otherwise permissible agreement setting forth an alternative arrangement. We also find that it is professional misconduct for the insured’s lawyer to retain such attorney fees without disclosing retention of the fees to the client.
This case commenced when the Disciplinary Commission filed its Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action on October 31, 1995, therein alleging that the…
3Cases cited10 opinions
- Amoco Production Co. v. LairdIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
- Freeman v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1995
- Indianapolis Union Railway Co. v. WaddingtonIndiana Supreme Court · 1907
- Erie Insurance Co. v. GeorgeIndiana Supreme Court · 1997
- Matter of MyersIndiana Supreme Court · 1996
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by28 opinions
- Petersen v. Magna Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 2009
- Rheem Manufacturing Co. v. Phelps Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.Indiana Supreme Court · 2001
- Bank of New York v. NallyIndiana Supreme Court · 2005
- Brownsburg Area Patrons Affecting Change v. BaldwinIndiana Supreme Court · 1999
- Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty P.C. v. Indiana InsuranceIndiana Supreme Court · 2000
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.