Oklahoma's highest court refuses to suspend an attorney who did not get written informed consent before forming an LLC with an elderly client and overpaid himself from the LLC, finding that the client was happy with the work the attorney had done and that he corrected the overpayment. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Helton (Okla., No. SCBD-6326, April 18, 2017).
Lonnie Brooks hired attorney Scott Helton to probate her sister's will. They developed a friendship, and Mr. Helton helped Ms. Brooks prepare estate planning documents and manage her finances. When Ms. Brooks wanted to name Mr. Helton as the beneficiary of her will, Mr. Helton brought in outside counsel to meet with Ms. Brooks. When Ms. Brooks moved into a nursing home, Mr. Helton helped manage her property by putting it in an LLC and renting it out. He then formed another LLC to purchase additional properties and manage them. He and Ms. Brooks had an agreement that he would receive one-third of the rent payments in exchange for managing the properties, but he did not put this in writing or get Ms. Brooks' written informed consent. At one point, Mr. Brooks overpaid himself from property funds.
The Oklahoma Bar Association filed a complaint against Mr. Helton, alleging that he violated several rules of professional conduct, including rules involving informed consent, conversion, and standards of conduct. Mr. Helton argued that he did not see himself as Ms. Brooks' attorney after he finished her sister's probate. At the hearing, Ms. Brooks testified that she was happy with everything that Mr. Helton had done. Once Mr. Helton began talking to the bar association, he put all of the agreements in writing and paid back the overpayment. The bar association recommended that Mr. Helton be suspended for six months.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court publicly reprimands Mr. Helton. The court rules that given the mitigating factors and the fact that "[Ms.] Brooks benefited from [Mr.] Helton's representation and [Mr.] Helton has fully complied with every aspect of the disciplinary process in this matter" a public reprimand is more appropriate than a suspension. Four justices dissent, arguing that suspension was appropriate.
For the full text of this decision, go to: https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=479887
Did you know that the ElderLawAnswers database now contains summaries of more than 2,000 fully searchable elder law decisions dating back to 1993? To search the database, click here.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
