Sanctions upheld against lawyer accused of billing for work done after his client fired him
Image from Shutterstock.com.
A Texas appeals court has upheld sanctions against a Houston lawyer accused of seeking attorney fees in a contingency case for work that he couldn’t have performed and for work done after his firing.
In a Jan. 28 opinion, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas upheld sanctions imposed in July 2018 by a trial court against lawyer Kenneth Nnaka.
The appeals court upheld a sanction of $2,500 and an order requiring Nnaka to attending a continuing legal education class on billing ethics.
Blanca Mejia had hired Nnaka to represent her and her child after they were injured in a crash between their vehicle and a tractor trailer. Mejia testified that she fired Nnaka after she was unable to meet or speak with him.
When she called Nnaka’s office, Mejia testified, she was told that he was out of the country.
Mejia obtained the police report herself and reported the claim to the insurance company for the driver of the tractor trailer. She tried to get medical treatment for back injuries, but the medical providers refused to treat her without authorization from Nnaka. Mejia sought treatment authorizations but never received them, she testified.
Mejia fired Nnaka and hired a new contingency lawyer who filed the suit, litigated the case and obtained the settlement. Nnaka then sought more than $29,000 in fees.
A trial judge determined that the value of Nnaka’s services was $0 and ordered Nnaka to show cause why he should not be sanctioned or held in contempt. The judge also ordered Nnaka to produce the client file and time records.
After the sanctions hearing, the trial court found that Nnaka billed for legal services that he didn’t perform, on dates that he could not have performed services, and overstated the time that he did spend on services. He also submitted a fee statement without making a reasonably diligent inquiry to determine whether it was accurate, the trial judge found.
The fee statement showed that Nnaka billed for 11 hours of work after Mejia had fired him. He also billed for services not supported by an activity log or calendar, and he billed Mejia for a hearing on a date when no hearing was held.
Nnaka had testified that there was no intent to deceive, and he was attempting to recall work done in a contingency case. He also said his secretary had prepared the billing statement.
The appeals court found no abuse of discretion by the trial judge who imposed sanctions.
Nnaka received a public reprimand in October 2019 for charging an unconscionable fee in the case.
Nnaka did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment. A woman who answered the phone at his law office said he was out of the country.
Hat tip to Law360, which covered the decision.
