James, Vernon & Weeks, P.A.

On April 16, 2018, an individual contacted our office, on behalf of *** ***, seeking legal services. The case was declined on April 18, because the requested attorney, Melanie B***, currently has no availability to take on new clients. Attorneys have an obligation under
Rule of the Idaho Rules of Professional Responsibility to control their work load “so that each matter can be handled competently.” Thus, a letter declining representation was sent to Mr***. Incidentally, MsB*** does not participate in the Idaho State Bar referral service nor does she advertise that she handles “long term care appeals”. We would suggest Mr*** contact the Idaho State Bar referral service to obtain the name of other attorneys who might be able to assist him

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this complaint. Given the constrictions placed upon an attorney which prevent disclosure of attorney-client privileged communications, we cannot disclose certain details of our representation. However, we can generally respond to the
allegations. Ms*** engaged Ms*** to defend her in a contempt of court proceeding on May 5, 2017. The motion for contempt filed against her requested the court find her in contempt for failing to follow a provision in the divorce decreeThe action, while civil, sought jail time as a sanction. Ms*** was successful in getting the contempt proceeding dismissed, which avoided the possible penalties associated with that action. Nonetheless, the opposing counsel was successful in obtaining an award of attorney fees against Ms***. Ms*** timely objected to the opposing counsel’s request for attorney fees. Contrary to Ms***’s allegations, Ms*** diligently pursued this matter, promptly informed Ms*** of court decisions and conferred with her and her husband regarding tactics and strategiesMs*** specifically claims that her concern is a motion to reconsider the attorney fees awarded by the court against Ms***. Ms*** acknowledges that she and Ms*** discussed the motion to reconsider. Ms*** discussed the negative ruling on attorney fees by phone with Ms*** and her husband on September 15, 2017, at which time Ms***’s options regarding the negative ruling were discussed, including accepting the ruling, appealing the ruling, or asking the court to reconsider its decision. At the conclusion of discussing the options, it was agreed Ms*** would file a motion to reconsider. Mrand Mrs*** also discussed filing a motion to modify the divorce decreeOn September 21, 2017, Mr*** sent an e-mail inquiry asking how matters were progressing. He also inquired about the appeal deadline on the attorney fee ruling. Ms*** filed the motion for reconsideration on September 29, 2017. On October 3, 2017, Mr*** discussed the motion to reconsider with Ashley Ceresa, an associate attorney who worked under the supervision of Ms***. Mr*** expressed concerns about opposing counsel’s conduct at the September 12, hearing. Mr*** also discussed the interpretation of the Charney case as it applied to the motion to reconsider and inquired if obtaining the oral argument tape from the Idaho Supreme Court would assist. Mr*** also indicated he did not receive the memorandum filed in support of the motion to reconsider and requested a copy of it. Ms*** followed up with Mr*** letting him know that the Charney oral argument was not neededBetween October and October 5, 2017, Mr*** again communicated with Ms***’s staff about obtaining the Charney hearing transcript. The only issue to which Charney was relevant at that point was the motion to reconsiderOn October 6, 2017, Mr*** sent an e-mail expressing frustration with opposing counsel’s behavior at the hearings, indicating the ***s were behind Ms*** 110%, and were hands on deck kind of people. Mr*** also inquired about other cases filed in support of the motion to reconsider. Mr*** indicated they were not aware of nor consulted that the motion to reconsider was filed, but then indicated that did not mean they were not in favor of it. At no time did the client indicate they did not wish to proceed with the motionThe hearing for the motion was scheduled for November 1, 2017. On October 12, 2017, Mr*** sent an e-mail inquiring into the modification motion and asked if there was any additional news on the reconsideration hearing. Again, there was no communication that the client wanted Ms*** to withdraw the motion to reconsider. The ***s attended the motion to reconsider hearing on November 1, 2017. The only way they could have been aware of the hearing was through the communication sent by Ms***’s staff. Unfortunately, the court did not grant the motion to reconsiderMs*** claims that the motion to reconsider resulted in $1,in fees. This allegation is simply incorrect. Ms*** billed $for all matters related to the motion to reconsider. In fact, as a courtesy to the client, Ms*** never billed for her attendance at the hearing. The remaining unpaid fees related to other issues handled by Ms*** for the client. In conclusion, Ms*** met her professional duties in handling this matter. It appears Ms*** was unhappy with the rulings of the court, and now seeks excuses not to pay her billing. However, the bottom line is that Ms*** has failed to pay as agreed for professional services which were rendered on her behalf

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:again I did not give my consent for Melanie to proceed with another court actionI was finished with the court actionMelanie did on her own accord without my permission or consent
Sincerely,
*** ***