According to the U.S Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, District court has “inherent powers to supervise conduct of lawyers who come before it, and in exercising those powers, a court need not free a client from acts of client’s lawyers, especially when (sic) said client is aware of or directs those acts.” This was in response to Sahyers v. Prugh, Holliday. The complain issued to the court set forth only a generic request for damages, and included no specific dollar amount or proof as to the amount she believed she was owed. The courts concluded that lawyers for the plaintiff made no effort to contact the defendants to inform them of the Plaintiffs impending claim, much less to attempt to come to a resolution before a suit was filed. The counsel for the plaintiffs only reason for failing to contact defendants was that client instructed him not to do so.
The district court wrote that “there are some cases in which a reasonable fee is no fee” and found that this case was such a case. Citing Chambers v. Naso the court concluded that they had the authority to police lawyer conduct and to guard as well as promote civility and collegiality among the members of its bar.
Answering these broad-based questions isn’t easy. Help is a phone call away. You can contact Nancy Cavey, an experienced long-term disability attorney at 727-894-3188.Google+