Kentucky Bar Ass'n v. Helmers
2011 WL 4431172, 353 S.W.3d 599, 2011 Ky. LEXIS 126 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's active and direct deception of clients regarding the terms and allocation of an aggregate settlement constitutes a severe ethical violation warranting permanent disbarment, and this misconduct is not excused by the attorney's inexperience or by the fact that it was done at the direction of a supervising attorney.
Facts:
- David L. Helmers, an associate attorney, worked almost exclusively on claims for injuries arising from the diet drug Fen-Phen.
- A class action lawsuit against American Home Products (AHP) resulted in a $200,000,000 aggregate settlement for 440 plaintiffs represented by Helmers' firm.
- Helmers, who had attended the mediation and signed the settlement agreement, was tasked by his supervising attorney, William Gallion, with creating the schedule allocating the settlement funds among the individual plaintiffs.
- Gallion then instructed Helmers to meet with clients and offer them settlement amounts substantially below their pre-approved allocations.
- Helmers met with 39 clients and presented the low offers, leading them to believe the offers came directly from AHP and concealing the true $200 million aggregate settlement amount and the internal allocation process.
- If a client rejected an initial offer, Helmers would later present a larger one, simulating a negotiation with AHP, and he warned clients they could be penalized for discussing their settlements.
- At Gallion's direction, Helmers later facilitated a second, smaller distribution to clients under the false pretense that it was authorized by the trial court.
- A $20,000,000 portion of the undistributed settlement funds was donated to a purported charity controlled by the senior attorneys on the case.
Procedural Posture:
- The Kentucky Bar Association (KBA) Inquiry Commission opened an investigative file on Respondent, David L. Helmers, in 2002.
- The Inquiry Commission filed a complaint in 2005, charging Helmers with eight ethics violations.
- A Trial Commissioner conducted a hearing, found Helmers guilty on six counts, and recommended a five-year suspension from the practice of law.
- The KBA Board of Governors reviewed the matter de novo, also found Helmers guilty on six counts, but recommended by a vote of eleven to five that he be permanently disbarred.
- Helmers did not file a notice to appeal the Board's decision, and the Supreme Court of Kentucky took up the matter for a final order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's conduct involving the systematic and direct deception of clients regarding a multi-million dollar aggregate settlement, even when acting under the direction of supervising attorneys, constitute professional misconduct warranting permanent disbarment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Minton
Yes. An attorney's direct and personal deception of clients about their settlement funds reveals a serious deficiency in character that warrants permanent disbarment. The court acknowledged mitigating circumstances, such as Helmers' inexperience and his subordinate position to the senior attorneys orchestrating the scheme. However, the court held that these factors could not excuse the fundamental wrongdoing. It reasoned that no sophisticated understanding of ethical rules is necessary to know that personally deceiving clients about their financial recovery is wrong. The fact that Helmers acted at the direction of his employer does not overcome the serious deficiency in character demonstrated by his actions, making permanent disbarment the appropriate sanction.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that fundamental ethical duties, such as honesty and candor toward a client, are non-delegable and apply to all attorneys, regardless of experience or rank within a firm. It significantly curtails the viability of the 'superior orders' or 'Nuremberg' defense in attorney disciplinary proceedings involving core ethical violations like fraud. The case serves as a stark warning to junior associates that they can be held fully accountable and face the ultimate professional sanction for participating in the misconduct of their superiors. The ruling solidifies that direct, knowing deception of clients is a per se violation of such a serious nature that mitigating factors like inexperience carry little weight.
