ROANOKE TIMES

                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, May 3, 1990                   TAG: 9005030660
SECTION: VIRGINIA                    PAGE: B1   EDITION: EVENING 
SOURCE: DOUGLAS PARDUE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium


HEARING ORDERED TO DECIDE IF LAWYERS' FEE EXCESSIVE

A federal judge in Roanoke has taken the unusual step of ordering a hearing that could result in a determination of how much authority judges have to regulate fees charged by attorneys.

U.S. District Judge James Turk ordered the hearing to find out if the Richmond law firm of Boone, Beale, Carpenter and Crosby violated the state's code of conduct for lawyers by charging a woman $25,000 to plead her guilty to a relatively minor crime.

In an order made public today, Turk said he wanted a federal magistrate in Charlottesville to determine if the fee was "unreasonable, excessive and unconscionable."

Turk has said he believes the fee may be a violation of the code.

Traditionally, fee arrangements are strictly a private matter between attorneys and clients.

However, Turk has said he is growing concerned about the amount of money some attorneys are charging to handle relatively minor criminal cases.

Michael Duncan, a federal probation officer in Turk's court, said in an earlier interview that for some people accused of relatively minor crimes, the attorney fee is "worse than a medical catastrophe."

Duncan said he's also run into cases where drug dealers who are freed on bond pending trial continue selling drugs to pay their attorney.

No date for the heading was set, but Turk ordered U.S. Magistrate B. Waugh Crigler in Charlottesville to determine whether the fee charged to Mabel L. Ruthkowski, a 60-year-old Cumberland County farmer, was excessive in violation of Virginia's code of professional responsibility.

Turk conceded in an earlier interview that it is rare for a judge to get involved in fee arrangements between attorneys and clients. But in his order for a hearing, he said, "The court has the responsibility to ensure that attorneys practicing before it conduct themselves properly." He said that includes responsibility to ensure that attorneys don't gouge naive clients.

Turk got involved in the fee dispute in October 1989 when Ruthkowski pleaded guilty in federal court in Roanoke to violating immigration laws by faking migrant worker documents to help Pakistani citizens remain in the United States under an amnesty program.

She was placed on two years of probation by Turk. He also ordered her to perform 100 hours of community service.

Turk imposed no fine after her attorney, Ray Carpenter, argued that she had no money.

The judge became enraged when he learned that Ruthkowski had no money because she had to sell her cows and mortgage her 25-acre farm to pay Carpenter a $25,000 fee. She said she did so because she was told she might be sent to prison.

Turk threatened in open court to file an ethics violation compliant with the state bar unless Carpenter agreed to return half of the money.

"It's just not right to take money like this from . . . this poor woman," Turk said.

Turk then told Ruthkowski that she had paid for practically nothing. "You could have done just as well on your own" without an attorney, he said.

David E. Boone, senior partner in Carpenter's firm, said the fee was fair and that his law firm would not return any of it. Carpenter said the fee was not what Ruthkowski claims, but he refused to reveal what it was.

Boone also accused Turk of overstepping his authority. He said the fee was set in accordance with fees charged by top firms in Richmond, office expenses and the time and experience of Carperter, a former assistant U.S. Attorney.

In his order requiring a hearing, Turk said he wants the magistrate to compare the fees charged by other attorneys for similar cases. He said he also wants the magistrate to compare the sentences and fees of Ruthkowski's co-defendants. He said that should include a comparison of complexity of the cases, the amount of time and the experience and reputations of the attorneys.

Most of Ruthkowski's co-defendants were represented by court-appointed attorneys from Roanoke. Two of the main co-defendants received sentences of one year and a day. Most of the others were fined less than $3,000 or released on probation.

Two of the other attorneys in the case said they received attorney fees or court-appointed fees of less than $1,500.



 by CNB