Yarboro Sallee v. Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility
469 S.W.3d 18, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 566, 2015 WL 4497949 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An attorney's fee is unreasonable when it is based on excessive and wasteful work, not communicated transparently to the client, and is disproportionate to the results obtained. An attorney also commits misconduct by failing to promptly surrender a client's property upon termination and by threatening criminal charges to gain an advantage in a civil dispute.
Facts:
- In September 2010, Frances Rodgers and Vearl Bible hired attorney Yarboro Sallee to investigate a potential wrongful death claim concerning their daughter.
- The parties orally agreed to an hourly rate of $250, but despite client requests, Sallee never provided a written fee agreement.
- Over the next three months, Sallee repeatedly demanded and received payments totaling $54,000 for fees, plus $5,000 for an expert, claiming to have worked hundreds of hours but providing no itemized bills.
- Sallee billed for activities such as watching multiple episodes of the television show "48 Hours," researching basic medical concepts, and personally driving to pick up records, all at her full attorney rate.
- In December 2010, Sallee presented confusing draft fee agreements that, for the first time, included a contingency fee on top of hourly rates, and claimed the clients owed her in excess of $132,000.
- After Rodgers and Bible terminated Sallee's representation in January 2011, she refused to turn over the complete client file, including critical medical records and brain tissue slides from the autopsy.
- When the former clients hired a new attorney, Larry Vaughan, to file a lawsuit to retrieve the files, Sallee sent Vaughan emails threatening to file a cross-complaint and felony criminal charges against Rodgers and Bible if their suit was not dropped.
Procedural Posture:
- Frances Rodgers and Vearl Bible filed complaints against Attorney Yarboro Sallee with the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR).
- The BPR filed a petition for discipline against Sallee, alleging multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
- A BPR hearing panel conducted a hearing, found Sallee guilty of multiple violations, and suspended her law license for one year.
- Sallee sought judicial review by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court of Knox County, Tennessee, a state trial court.
- The Chancery Court reviewed the record and affirmed the hearing panel's decision in its entirety.
- Sallee, representing herself, appealed the Chancery Court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court.
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 violate the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct by charging excessive fees based on poorly communicated and wasteful billing practices, refusing to return the client's file upon termination, and threatening criminal prosecution against former clients to gain an advantage in a fee dispute?
Opinions:
Majority - Holly Kirby, J.
Yes, the attorney's conduct violates the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct concerning fees, communication, termination of representation, and respect for the rights of third persons. The court found that Sallee's fees were unreasonable under Rule 1.5, as she engaged in 'wasteful procedures,' such as billing lawyer rates for watching television shows and performing administrative tasks, and the amount charged—over $140,000 for three months of preliminary work—was grossly disproportionate to the minimal results obtained. Sallee also violated Rule 1.4 by failing to communicate the basis of her fee, never providing itemized statements, and surprising her clients with a new contingency fee demand. Furthermore, her refusal to promptly surrender the clients' file upon termination, which included critical items like autopsy slides and forced the clients to file a lawsuit, violated Rule 1.16. Finally, by sending emails threatening to file felony charges against her former clients to gain an advantage in the civil dispute over the files, Sallee clearly violated Rule 4.4. The court affirmed the one-year suspension, emphasizing the multiple violations and aggravating factors, particularly Sallee's complete refusal to acknowledge the wrongfulness of her conduct.
Analysis:
This decision serves as a powerful reinforcement of an attorney's core ethical duties of reasonableness in fees, transparency in communication, and professionalism in handling the termination of a client relationship. The court makes clear that billing for 'wasteful procedures' like watching television for research is unacceptable and contributes to an unreasonable fee. The ruling strongly condemns post-termination misconduct, establishing that withholding a client's file and using threats of criminal prosecution are severe breaches that warrant significant sanctions, even for an attorney with no prior disciplinary history. This case provides a clear guidepost for what constitutes excessive billing and unprofessional conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
