Law Professor Ordered to Pay $156K After Accepting Improper Referral Fee
A judge found accepting that fee was improper because New Jersey ethics rules only allow payment of referral fees by a certified trial attorney.
January 24, 2020 at 11:22 AM
4 minute read
A Philadelphia law professor is resisting efforts to collect a $156,436 judgment in New Jersey for receiving an improper referral fee and the unauthorized practice of law in a medical malpractice case.
Frank McClellan, professor emeritus at Temple University's Beasley School of Law, was ordered by Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Thomas McCloskey to pay that amount to Cindy Johnson, who consulted him about bringing a medical malpractice claim on behalf of her late husband. McClellan was also ordered on Jan. 3 to pay Johnson's legal bills for collection of the improper referral fees, an amount to be determined later. In addition, a separate legal malpractice claim brought by Johnson against McClellan is pending.
McClellan could be found in contempt of court after refusing to cooperate in a deposition tied to an effort to collect on the judgment. Johnson's lawyer sought to depose McClellan concerning his assets. The deposition notice instructed McClellan to bring statements for bank accounts, investments and other cash assets, as well as titles to any real property and automobiles.
But McClellan's counsel said his client would not attend the deposition because he intends to appeal. In response, Johnson's lawyer moved to find McClellan in contempt of court on Jan. 15.
McClellan received a $52,145 referral fee from Aaron Freiwald, a Philadelphia lawyer who represented Johnson in the medical malpractice case. But accepting that fee was improper because New Jersey ethics rules only allow payment of referral fees by a certified trial attorney, McCloskey ruled. Freiwald has not attained that status and was himself practicing pro hac vice in New Jersey. What's more, McCloskey found McClellan, who is not admitted in New Jersey, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law with his involvement in the Johnson case. On that basis, McCloskey found, the amount of the improper referral fee was subject to trebling.
McClellan is a founder of Temple's Center for Health Law Policy and Practice, and has taught courses on bioethics, medical malpractice, law and medicine, and torts. McClellan received his law degree from Duquesne University School of Law in 1970.
McClellan had an active role in Johnson's case, drafting documents, retaining experts and giving opinions about the law to Johnson and other attorneys working for her, McCloskey said. Fee-splitting is permitted under court rules, if the client is informed of the arrangement, and the split is proportionate to the amount of work performed by each attorney, which was not the case here, McCloskey said. But both McClellan and Freiwald characterized the payment as a referral fee, and not a split fee.
McClellan's referral fee was one-third of the $156,436 that Freiwald received after obtaining a $500,000 settlement in a medical malpractice suit on behalf of Johnson. When Johnson sought advice from McClellan about filing the suit, he referred her to Freiwald.
Johnson later determined that certain culpable parties were left out of the medical malpractice suit. She brought a malpractice suit against McClellan and Freiwald and others in Essex County. Freiwald assigned to Johnson the right to the return of the referral fee, according to a court document.
"Clearly, as established by the motion record, Mr. McClellan was interloping in the underlying medical malpractice matter and, as a consequence, was improperly compensated by Freiwald for doing so—without disclosure of the arrangement to the Plaintiff and her written consent to the same—to the detriment and loss to the Plaintiff's Estate," McCloskey said when he entered the judgment against McClellan.
Johnson is represented by William Gold of Bendit Weinstock in West Orange. Johnson is hoping her recovery from McClellan will help make up for a less-than-sufficient recovery in the medical malpractice suit, Gold said.
McClellan "doesn't understand the laws of New Jersey with respect to a medical malpractice case, doesn't understand he's practicing law in New Jersey and doesn't understand he was illegally, criminally practicing law in New Jersey, and doesn't understand he doesn't have the right to a fee," Gold said.
One attorney representing McClellan, John Slimm of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin in Mount Laurel, declined to comment on the litigation. Another attorney, Christopher Carey of McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter in Newark, said he is not authorized to discuss the litigation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNJ Justices Provide A Sensible Decision on the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
4 minute read2024 Continuing Legal Education Attorney Ineligible List and In-House Counsel Ineligible List
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250