In May we filed a complaint with Hawaii Disciplinary Counsel based on our allegations of ethical concerns, misrepresentation, and an alleged conflict of interest, at times the inability on the part of Attorney Diehl to communicate with myself and others, as well as charging what we allege to be unreasonable fees not commensurate with the level of service achieved. Our litigation was defined as a Probate Contest. It is our allegation Mr. Diehl billed unreasonable and excessive amounts for services he had claimed to render. We allege Mr. Diehl became aware of a key and critical document (1st Amendment to our fathers trust) and for reasons unknown or from sheer negligence, chose to not inform us. The referenced documents are two 1st Amendments to our fathers original Elvin R Meek Family Trust dated June 14,1996. Both Amendments named Bank of Hawaii as Co-Trustee of the QDOT and EXEMPTION TRUST. April Mr. Diehl indicated there was a possibility of settling the case. Having satisfied the initial retainer two previous times, Mr. Diehl asked to have his retainer replenished once again. At this point $30,000.00 was paid to Mr. Diehl over a period of only 14 months. The attached billing statements coupled with an attached letter dated March 7 from Mr. Diehl will reflect, in my view and opinion, inflated, exorbitant, unfair, and unreasonable fees for services rendered. Attorney Diehls office clearly reflects charges our account for preparation of the Attorney Representation Agreement and letter in the amount of $525.00 for 2.1 hours. Having experience working in the legal profession and upon conferring with attorneys inside and outside of the State of Hawaii, it is not customary to charge a potential client a fee ($525.00) to draft a Retainer Agreement. The September billing statement prepared by Attorney Diehls office in the 8/31/07 through 9/10/07 entries charge: $243.40 for copies (this is highly unreasonable considering the Objection to Bank of Hawaii petition and attachments is no more than 12 pages. The filing fee in the amount of $400.00 and listed as Probate Motion is also questionable since, according to Ms. Gabnia, a filing clerk at the 1st Circuit Court of Hawaii, a Petition had been previously filed by the attorneys from Bank of Hawaii... The November billing statement prepared by Attorney Diehl, contains an entry on the second page under Additional Charges, a title search that was prepared and obtained on two properties from First American Title Company. This was also unnecessary as Mr. Diehl was provided these documents when I retained his services. A telephone call to a clerk with the First American Title Company in San Francisco confirmed cost for producing such a document is no more than $2 a page. Since the documents were no more than 10 pages, the charge of $942.40 would appear to be excessive. The climate of my relationship with Mr. Diehl during the months of April through June became chilled and tense especially after a request to replenish his retainer a third time. It should be noted and repeated that Mr. Diehl had received $30,000.00 at this juncture. Another example of excessive billing is dated 4/28/08 wherein Attorney Diehl charges $1,525.00 for 6.1 hours of Review Pleadings, finalize response, draft Ex Parte Motion to Seal Death Certificate, letter to Rhonda Griswold and a Letter to Russ Nowell. Further, a billing entry dated 4/30/08 for 5.9 hours at $1,475.00 for Letter to Nanci Meek regarding an invoice, letter to Ms Griswold, review accounting, Response, Exhibits and Petition to Compel. (It should be noted here, at this time there was no Petition to Compel or Exhibits to review.) The entry dated 5/2/08 reflects 8.3 hours worked with a total of $2,075.00 being billed for teleconference with Nanci Meek, prepare and attend and a court hearing. This was not a hearing but in fact, was a court appearance requesting Judge Hirai to continue the Petition to Remove Trustee. On August our fathers close friend, Wes Stewart and a key witness to our litigation, executed an affidavit in Mr. Diehls offices regarding witnessing our fathers physical condition at the time the second Amendment was executed. I was charged for this Affidavit preparation and execution however, I would not discover until three years later (at an Evidentiary Hearing) that the Affidavit was never filed with the First Circuit Court in Hawaii. Also, Mr. Diehl advised he would be obtaining Mr. Stewarts video recorded Affidavit as Mr. Stewart was of advanced age.in February Mr. Stewart passed away.in August Mr. Diehl informed me he never video recorded Mr. Stewarts Affidavit. A letter addressed to Judge Hirai and dated January 18 from Judy Lee, attorney for Bank of Hawaii, reflects Attorney Richard Diehl was not communicating with her offices. Further, on February 11 an Order Granting Petition for Approval of Resignation of the Bank of Hawaii as co-trustee was granted by Judge Hirai. Our attorney, Richard Diehl was not present as is evidenced by his non-signature on the Judgment. A letter from Attorney Judy Lee confirms several attempts by her to contact Attorney Diehl went unanswered. Affidavit In Support of Attorneys Fees and Costs with attached Exhibit A (billing statements for attorneys representing the Bank of Hawaii) and filed September 25, reflect the Bank of Hawaii, attorneys for the Bank of Hawaii, the opposing party (our stepmother, Elizabeth Reklai Meek) as well as her Law Firm Cades Shutte, were aware that a forged document existed entitled the 1st Amendment to the Elvin R Meek Family Trust. We allege Attorney Richard Diehl was made aware of this forged document as early as September. The forged document was initially introduced to the San Luis Obispo Superior Court in September by Elizabeth Meeks attorney in California, Robert Grigger Jones. According to an Affidavit prepared by Attorney Judy Lee and executed by Attorney Robert Jones in January of Mr. Jones states the aforementioned 1st Amendment was executed on September 16,1997 in Hawaii and again three days later by our father on September 19,1997 in California. Page 5 of the attached billing statement dated 12/27/05 entry on 10/14/05, reflects Legal Assistant S. Pang comparing two versions of the 1st Amendment. Upon retaining Mr. Diehl in September the suggestion was made by me that the 1st Amendment was a questionable document. Mr. Diehl encouraged us to not proceed contesting the document as it contained a No contest clause. And yet as early as September upon learning of the questionable document, Attorney Diehl never suggested or so much as informed us of the discrepancy with the signatures on the two 1st Amendments. The Petition For Order Clarifying Prior Order And Judgment On Second Amended Petition For Reformation Of Trust Agreement Confirming Relationship Between 1992 and 1996 Trusts And Instructing Petitioner Regarding Sale of Real Property was filed February 23 Page two clearly outlines the existence of two 1st Amendments to the Elvin R Meek Original Family Trust dated June 14,1996. One was supposedly executed on September 16 and the second one was supposedly executed on September 19,1997 in California. This clearly indicates Mr. Diehl had knowledge of this and did not share this with us. It would appear he was colluding with the attorneys for the opposing side and looking the other way. The Petition was denied and the matter remained in the Hawaii courts. A month later the Bank of Hawaii sent us a letter stating they would be asking to withdraw as co-trustee. Mr. Diehl told me in the hallway of the courthouse that if I so much as filed a complaint or told anyone how he had treated me as a client he would fight back vociferously It made my blood turn cold thinking that I had trusted this man and he turned on me.
0 comments