In re Fordham
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
668 N.E.2d 816 (1996)
Fordham (defendant), who told client Clark at their first meeting that he had never handled a criminal matter but would take the DUI case at $200 per hour, spent 227 combined hours over several months developing a novel suppression theory involving the precise numerical proximity of two breath-test results, ultimately winning a not-guilty verdict for Clark's son, then billed Clark $50,022.25; four testifying experts agreed the novel defense theory likely helped win the case but had never heard of a comparable fee exceeding $15,000, with the customary range actually running between $1,000 and $7,500. A disciplinary panel found in Fordham's favor under a "safe harbor" theory that a reasonable hourly rate multiplied by actual hours worked is presumptively protected from an excessiveness challenge, and Bar Counsel (plaintiff) appealed.
Whether, in Massachusetts, a fee charged by an attorney may be excessive if the attorney bills for his considerable time learning the particular area or topic of law or if the fee is clearly in excess of a fee customarily charged in the locality for comparable services.