giglio-32196-0-public-censure.pdf (2013)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (giglio-32196-0-public-censure.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

IN DISCIPLINARY DlSTRICT 0
OF THE
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE.
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

IN RE: John Mchael Giglio, BI’R NO. 25139 FILE NO. 32196~0-KS
Respondent, an attorney licensed
to practice law in Tennessee
(Cetoosa County, Georgia)

PUBLIC CENSURE

The above complaint was filed against John Michael Chglio, an attomey licensed to

practice law in Tennessee, alleging certain acts of misconduct. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule

9, the Board of Professional Responsibility‘ considered these matters at its meeting on” December

, -"-——-W‘r-’Tr“"r— . .... .. . .. _...
M, 2012.

The Respondent’s client’s daughter was killed by her husband, who then killed himself.

The Respondent agreed to represent the client in probefing her daughter’s estate, and in pursuing

ereoovei'y fizom the husband’s life insmance and retirement fund. The Respondent infotmeii his

client that he would charge a fifteen percent contingency fee, but did not provide a written

-m __.,...._.. 1..
contract documenting the terms of the fee agreement. Because he was not licensed in Tennessee,

the Respondent zwsocieted a Tennessee attorney to file the probate petition.

Under the low, only if the husband died before the client’s daughter, Would the funds

from the husband’s life ihsursnce and employment account be distributed to the d.aughte1"s

estate. Because it was not clear who heal died first, funds totaling $515,000 were interplecl into

federal court by the husband’s life htsurshoe company and employer. The Respondent

negotiated a $5,000 settlement for his client item the interpled fluids.
The client paid the Respondent $70,000, but contested the reasonableness of the fee

before the Probate Court. Although the Respondent had not represented his client regarding her

daughter’s life insurance, lie charged his client fifieen percent of the $500,000 that the client

received from 11 er-deughteiisinsurance compenyrAfier'e—hearing' entire—Respondent s?fees, the

Probate Court Clerk and Master issued a report which reflects that the. Respondent violated, Rule

of Professional Conduct 1.5 (fees) in several rcsPeets: the Respondent did not provide his client

with a written fee agreement which is required in contingency fee rinses, the Respondent did not

'obtain his client’s written consent pn'er to dividing the fee with a. lower who was not in his firm,

and the Respondent charged so umeesonable fee. The Clerk and Master found that a reasonable

fee for the Respondent wouldbe $20,000, and ordered the Respondent to refimd $50,000 plus the

costs of the proceeding to his client. The Respondent has refunded the excessive portion of his

fees.

« .mmW—wgu ..._
By the aforementioned acts, John Michael Gigtio has violated Rules of Professional

Conduct. 1.5(21) (requiring reasonable fees), 1.5(c) (requiring written contingency fee

agreements),‘end 1.503) (requiring written consent prior to division of fees between lawyers), and

is hereby Publicly Censored for these violations. x

.....--.,.._._,. w
FORTHE BOARD OF
PROFBS SIGNAL RESPONSIBILITY

condemn
Lela Flollabaugh, ChairV

09%? to r 410/3
Date

Go to Top

Assistance Request

Request Accessibility Assistance

Name

Email

Phone

What do you need help with?

The HTML version is missing content

The HTML version contains errors

The reading order is incorrect or confusing

I need help understanding the content

I need a different alternative format

Other

Preferred format

Additional details

Urgency Urgent Soon Not urgent

Go to Top