By Dan Frazier
Tea Party Editor
(Longer Web version, with a correction regarding “Anne” made 3/8/02)

(Includes sidebars about the State Bar’s response, and about the group that is forming for a possible class-action suit or ballot initiative).

Diana chokes up as she recalls how she and her kids were homeless until recently. Kathryn seems nervous. She can’t forget her legal nightmare and thinks she may suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. “Lori” had to fight a lawsuit over her legal bills. “Robbie” expects his car will be repossessed soon.  Russ angrily recalls being falsely accused in court of driving drunk. “Jodi” is heartbroken about losing custody of her son.

What do all these people, and several others, have in common? They all blame their troubles on attorney Ellen Seaborne or her law firm, Ellen Seaborne and Associates. (Names within quotation marks have been changed.)

Ellen Seaborne, Flagstaff’s most advertised family lawyer, has been the subject of at least 16 complaints filed with the State Bar of Arizona in the last three years. The complaints were filed mostly by former clients. All of the complaints have been dismissed by the Bar which maintains that Seaborne is in “good standing.”

However, my own three-month investigation suggests an alarming pattern of dishonesty and questionable billing practices on Seaborne’s part, and a disturbing failure by the Bar to either spot this pattern, or effectively discipline Seaborne. My investigation built on the research of a former Seaborne client, and included a review of hundreds of documents on file at the Bar in Phoenix, as well as court records. In addition, I interviewed more than 25 people, including Ellen Seaborne, a number of her former clients, representatives of the Bar and others. Also, eight former clients completed lengthy questionnaires about their experiences with Ellen Seaborne for this story. During the investigation, I also obtained documents alleged to be confidential billing instructions used in Seaborne’s office. These confidential documents support allegations of ethical impropriety.

During an interview held in her office overlooking Flagstaff’s historic courthouse, Seaborne discounted the importance of the complaints filed against her. Sitting at her large polished desk, the 58-year-old Seaborne spoke softly of the family laws she has helped to write, and the awards she has won for her pro bono work (work done at no charge for low-income individuals). The heavyset Seaborne exhibited the same quiet charm and grandmotherly patience some of her former clients recalled. Several former clients indicated Seaborne initially came across as caring, but later seemed ruthless or cold-hearted.  

By all accounts, family lawyers receive a disproportionate number of complaints compared to lawyers who practice in other fields. According to the Bar’s 2000 Annual Report, in Arizona, complaints in the area of family law account for 28 percent of all complaints. This is likely due in part to the emotional nature of divorce, child custody, child support and similar matters that family lawyers routinely deal with. Seaborne said that some of her attorney colleagues will not touch family law partly because of the number of Bar complaints that arise.

In an e-mail message following our interview, Seaborne wrote, “If you really want to do something worthwhile you should do a story about how bar complaints reduce the number of family law attorneys willing to practice in this worthwhile area.”

But a document Seaborne gives to clients titled “General office and billing information” puts a decidedly different spin on complaints — at least on those that are filed in her office rather than at the Bar: “Complaints are simply ideas that open doorways for improvement; therefore, we welcome your suggestions,” says the document. 

During my interview, Seaborne said that she understood that I had been in touch with some of her former or current clients.

I said that I was not aware that I had been in touch with any of her current clients.

Her subsequent e-mail accused me of lying on this point. “The fact that you lied directly to me about not contacting current clients tells me that you have a hidden agenda and that you cannot possibly do an unbiased and journalistically professional story about me — and that you don’t want to.”

I still do not believe that I had been in contact with any of Seaborne’s current clients at the time I interviewed her. However, after I read Seaborne’s accusation, it occurred to me that I had been in touch with Walter G. Cottriel, who, conceivably, might be considered a “current client.” I spoke to Cottriel briefly by phone five days before I interviewed Seaborne. Cottriel told me that he was a former client of Seaborne’s — and said his divorce case had ended about a month prior to my conversation with him.

During her interview, Seaborne noted that unlike most other attorneys, she and her firm exclusively handle family law issues. It is possible that Ellen Seaborne handles more family law cases than any other attorney in Flagstaff. In late December, she told me that her firm, Ellen Seaborne & Associates, handled 1,510 cases since her firm began operations in 1989.  Seaborne indicated her firm was currently handling about 80 cases, with the number of cases about evenly split between herself and her current associate attorney, Benjamin Deguire. Seaborne’s firm also employs five or six others, including paralegals and administrative assistants.

Seaborne calculated that over the years only about 1 percent of her cases had resulted in complaints that led to a Bar investigation — 16 such complaints in all. Because the Bar only retains most complaint records for three years, it was not possible to verify Seaborne’s figures. However, according to Bar records, Seaborne has had 10 complaints that were investigated and dismissed during the last three years. She has also had 6 complaints that were closed without investigation during the same period.

By comparison, another prominent local family lawyer, who commented on the condition of anonymity, claimed to handle 20 to 30 cases a year. This lawyer handles between 15 and 20 cases at any given time, and has had only two complaints in the last three years.

A survey of Bar records revealed that among a sampling of 26 attorneys who have practiced at least some family law in Flagstaff in recent years (not including Seaborne) there were a total of 29 complaints recorded. Thirteen attorneys had no complaints; five attorneys had one complaint each; two attorneys had two complaints; three attorneys had three complaints; one attorney had four complaints; one attorney had six complaints. All of these complaints were  investigated and dismissed except for the six against the last attorney. The complaints against the last attorney, “Anne” (not her real name), and the resulting disciplinary proceedings, ultimately resulted in a long-term interruption of Anne’s law career, which continues to this day.

“Anne” (not her real name), declined to be interviewed for this story. However, Anne reportedly told one source that most of the complaints against her were made by Seaborne or somehow connected to her. Several people interviewed for this story believe that Seaborne was instrumental in short-circuiting Anne’s law career. Public records show that Seaborne filed at least one complaint against Anne. In addition, at least one of Seaborne’s clients filed a complaint against Anne. However, as of this writing, I have obtained no evidence indicating that this client’s complaint was in any way encouraged by Seaborne. I have yet to attempt to investigate this question. Meanwhile, many of the relevant documents containing the evidence presented against Anne have been sealed and are not part of the public record. Last August, as disciplinary proceedings against Anne neared their conclusion, Anne requested and was granted a permanent transfer to “disability inactive status,” by the Disciplinary Commission of the Arizona Supreme Court. This interrupted Anne’s law career in Arizona for an indefinite period. Some of those interviewed believe that at least some of the allegations against Anne were unsubstantiated and that Anne may have been run out of town by Seaborne in an effort to quash a competitor.

(This information about Anne was revised on March 8, 2002 to reflect new information obtained by FTP and clarify some points. Previous versions of this story failed to note that Anne’s transfer to disability inactive status was made at her own request.) 

It would appear from the number of complaints filed against other attorneys at the Bar that Seaborne gets 16 times as many complaints as the average Flagstaff attorney who handles some family law cases. The higher number of complaints against Seaborne may be partly due to the large number of family law cases she handles. But in talking to other attorneys and judges, I found no evidence that she or her firm handles 16 times as many cases as other attorneys practicing family law in Flagstaff.

Judge Fred Newton, who often presides over family law disputes in his courtroom, said of Seaborne, “She probably has as many or more (cases) than any other (domestic relations) attorney in town.” Newton also noted that five or six other attorneys also have large family law practices in Flagstaff.

Though it appears that a disproportionate number of Seaborne’s clients have been dissatisfied with her services, she maintains a relatively large practice, probably because she advertises extensively. Until recently, Seaborne published a weekly column in the Arizona Daily Sun. The column, which she called a “community service project” because it sometimes contained information about the legal system, was in fact a paid advertisement that often merely promoted Seaborne as a lawyer with a sense of humor and a caring nature. In a recent column, Seaborne announced that she was only going to publish her column every other week as part of a cost-cutting plan related to the recession. In the same column she noted that her weekly column in the Sun had cost her $11,648 a year. This cost is one of many advertising-related costs incurred by Seaborne annually. She may well be the most advertised attorney in Flagstaff. Her paid columns also appear regularly in Mountain Living Magazine. She has four full-color ads in the Qwest Yellow Pages for Flagstaff, including a full-page ad. Her paid sponsorships are also heard on public radio. She also has a Web site (http://seaborne.qwestdex.com) and has paid for a lengthy description of her firm in at least one major law directory.

Seaborne likely can afford her advertising expenses. She currently charges $200 an hour for her services. She said her rates are probably in the top 15 percent relative to the rates of other local attorneys. She justified her rates by citing her extensive experience.

“I’m not the most expensive,” said Seaborne, “but I’ve been practicing in this area exclusively for longer than anybody else.”

Asked how much she earned last year, Seaborne said she did not know, but added that even if she did know, she might not be inclined to disclose such information. However, Arizona Attorney magazine surveyed nearly 1,500 Arizona attorneys last year about their incomes. The results of this survey were published in December. The results indicated that a “sole practitioner with associates” has a net income of $175,000 a year or more if he or she is in the top 75 percent of such attorneys ranked by income, while those in the 95^th percentile earn $466,000 a year or more.

Seaborne’s income is of special interest because several former clients alleged that Seaborne’s fees were excessive.

The complaint documents

The State Bar of Arizona is a nonprofit corporation funded by dues paid by lawyers. Lawyers must be members of the Bar to practice in Arizona. The Bar was created and is largely regulated by the Arizona Supreme Court. The mission statement of the Bar is lengthy and multifaceted, but a central purpose of the Bar is to discipline lawyers. A handout prepared by the Bar states, “The number one goal of the discipline system is to protect the public from harm caused by attorneys who demonstrate unethical conduct. The system also works to educate attorneys to help them better serve future clients and prevent them from repeating unethical behavior.”

In November, I visited the State Bar of Arizona, located in a high-rise office building in downtown Phoenix. There, with assistance from a former Seaborne client, I photographed hundreds of pages of documents in the complaint files of Ellen Seaborne. (It was much cheaper to photograph the documents than to pay the 75-cent per page photocopying cost charged by the Bar.)

The documents we photographed were later printed to paper using microfilm equipment. We probably photographed 350 documents at the Bar. Later the same day we visited the Disciplinary Clerk’s office at the Supreme Court and photographed perhaps 70 documents pertaining to the disciplinary action against Anne. As mentioned earlier, some believe Seaborne’s complaint (or complaints?) against Anne led to Anne’s being prohibited from practicing law in Arizona. These documents, along with about 130 others collected by the former client during a previous visit to the Bar, provided a telling glimpse into the experiences of Seaborne’s complainants.

However, even with close to 500 documents from the Bar, I hardly had the full record of the complaints against Seaborne. Indeed, two or three of the thicker complaint files may have contained 500 documents each. Fortunately, some of the complaint files were much more manageable, containing only a handful of documents. I was able to photograph a sampling of documents from each of the 16 complaint files that were part of the public record. However, in most cases it was not practical to photograph all of the documents in a given complaint file. Also, portions of some complaint files had been designated as confidential and were not part of the public record (usually at Seaborne’s request).

In addition to photographing documents pertaining to Seaborne’s complaints, we also photographed documents pertaining to five complaints made against four other Flagstaff attorneys who practice family law. These complaints, chosen at random, were of interest because they could be compared to Seaborne’s complaints and thereby show whether or not the nature of complaints against Seaborne differed from the norm. It was immediately apparent that the complaint files of other Flagstaff attorneys tended to be much smaller than Seaborne’s. Later, upon closer inspection, it became clear that the complaints against the other attorneys had little in common with Seaborne’s complaints. While nearly all of the complaints against Seaborne included allegations of dishonesty, only one of the five complaints against the other attorneys contained an allegation that even hinted at dishonesty. Complaints involving fees are more common in these five complaints, with fees being mentioned in three of the five complaints.  

More troubling statistics

In addition to the documents photographed at the Bar, I also obtained documents directly from some of the complainants — some of which were not submitted to the Bar.

In all, I am aware of 20 people who either claim to have filed a complaint against Ellen Seaborne or who have actually done so. I was able to get in touch with 13 of these complainants, including three people whose complaints were not on file at the Bar when I visited. Also, two other individuals told me they plan to file separate complaints against Ellen Seaborne soon.

Most of the complainants were women. At least half were low-income individuals. However, the complainants also included one local attorney, one state representative, at least two business owners, and other professionals. Most of the complainants were involved in divorces or child custody disputes.

When I visited the Bar in November, I asked to see all of the complaints against Ellen Seaborne. Later I would learn of three additional complaints that were not in evidence at the Bar. Of the three complaints that were not available for public inspection at the Bar, one may have been expunged because it was filed about four years ago (records of complaints that are dismissed are only retained for three years). However that complainant claims never to have received a response of any kind from the Bar, though proof of delivery was certified by the U.S. Postal Service, according to the complainant.

The second “missing” complaint was filed about a year ago, by Linda Hawkins, one of four “opposing clients” to file complaints against Seaborne. Opposing clients have been on the opposing side in litigation against clients represented by Seaborne. As of February, Hawkins claimed to have received no acknowledgement of her complaint from the Bar. Investigation of this complaint may have been put on hold until litigation between Hawkins and her ex-spouse was concluded. This litigation concluded in November, after I visited the Bar. Seaborne declined to comment publicly about whether or not there were any complaints against her pending at the Bar.

The third “missing” complaint was not on file because it was filed after my visit to the Bar.

Of the 20 complainants, at least 16 alleged that Seaborne engaged in one form of dishonesty or another. Five complainants alleged that Seaborne made false statements in court. At least eight complainants alleged that Seaborne made false statements to the Bar, while a similar number of clients alleged that Seaborne made false statements to them. Several of the complainants alleged that Seaborne made numerous false statements.

Shari Curry, one of Seaborne’s former clients who filed a complaint, wrote to the Bar about no fewer than 33 statements made by Seaborne that Curry alleged were false. At least five of Curry’s allegations are supported by documents in Curry’s file at the Bar. The Bar could have investigated at least seven other Curry allegations by interviewing witnesses or other third parties, but there is no evidence in the file that the Bar did this.

In fact, neither Curry nor any other complainant questioned for this story reported that they were aware that the Bar had contacted any witness or third party in the course of its investigation of their complaint. It seems that many complaints investigated by the Bar involve not so much an investigation in the traditional sense, as a review of the complainant’s written claims against the attorney, and a review of the attorney’s written response. A copy of the complaint is normally sent to the attorney in question for a response. And a copy of the attorney’s response is normally sent to the complainant. Sometimes the attorney’s response generates counterclaims from the complainant, who may dispute the response. This in turn may lead to another response from the attorney, and so on, back and forth, until one side or the other gives up, or the Bar makes a decision.

In addition to dishonesty, another common theme running through many of the complaints is the inappropriateness of Seaborne’s fees. At least 10 of 13 former clients who filed complaints against Seaborne questioned her fees. Several former clients claimed that at the outset Seaborne had suggested that their legal needs were fairly simple, and might be handled quickly. But these simple cases sometimes dragged on for months, racking up fees that were devastating to clients. Though several clients claimed they told Seaborne early on that they could not afford to pay hefty legal fees, they say that Seaborne gave them little or no indication that the cost to service their legal needs might escalate rapidly. Allegations of inappropriate billing practices such as double billing were voiced by at least eight of the client-complainants, and even by one of the opposing client-complainants. At least eight client-complainants claim Seaborne threatened to quit if they did not pay additional legal fees. Three claimed that Seaborne threatened them with litigation if they refused to pay. In at least one of these cases, that of Diana Royce, Seaborne did sue, ultimately placing a lien on Royce’s  home. Royce said she was forced to file for bankruptcy as a result of Seaborne’s high legal bills. Royce said that her experiences with Seaborne caused her to consider suicide.

Seaborne’s fees might have been more tolerable to some of those who complained, had these clients felt they were getting good legal representation.  But 11 of 13 client-complainants indicated that Seaborne provided them with little or nothing in the way of substantive legal services. Rarely if ever did Seaborne’s representation have the desired outcome according to client-complainants. Several former clients indicated that Seaborne disregarded their instructions, thus adding complexity and animosity to disputes, and prolonging and intensifying litigation unnecessarily. Information gleaned from complaints on file at the Bar, interviews, and questionnaires completed by some client-complainants, suggests that nearly all of the client-complainants would rate Seaborne low or very low in such areas as “competence,” “knowledge of the law,” “ability to accomplish legal objectives in a timely manner,” “preparation for court,” and “compassion for others.”

The allegations made by those clients who filed complaints with the Bar against Ellen Seaborne clearly showed a pattern of dishonesty, high fees and minimal service. This pattern also appears to hold true for six former Seaborne clients who did not file complaints, but who either were interviewed for this story, or whose views are reflected in court records.

Only two people interviewed for this story seemed to have positive views of Seaborne.

Dee Steadman had a free community announcement published on Jan. 4 in the Arizona Daily Sun. The short notice praised Seaborne for her generosity to the United Way. “Ellen and her associates and staff have proven to be thoughtful and kind in many other ways and this humanitarian gesture again shows that,” wrote Steadman.

Steadman’s notice was published nine days after my interview with Ellen Seaborne. During the interview I asked Seaborne if she could refer me to anyone who might speak favorably about her. Seaborne did not provide me with the names of any such individuals.

In a brief phone interview, Steadman said she works in Judge H. Jeffrey Coker’s court and knows Seaborne professionally. “She’s one of the lawyers that’s always going to be honest in their pleadings. She’s real pleasant to have in our court, because you know she’s that kind of person. And the people who work for her are that kind of people too. That’s just real pleasant,” said Steadman.

Another person who spoke favorably of Seaborne was Walt Cottriel. Cottriel said he was “perfectly satisfied” with Seaborne’s representation during the 21 months of litigation that it took to finalize his divorce.

“I just saw the efforts of everybody in the office working in my behalf and her procedures I thought were acceptable,” said Cottriel. Cottriel added that he felt that Seaborne’s fees were in line with those of other attorneys in town.

But Cottriel’s ex-wife, Linda Hawkins, who has filed a complaint against Seaborne, takes a dim view of Cottriel’s satisfaction. “She took him for close to $80,000,” said Hawkins. “But she had him wrapped around her finger, and he doesn’t want to admit, I’m sure, that he was so gullible.”

Though Walt Cottriel may have been satisfied with Ellen Seaborne’s services, most others contacted for this story tended to be anything but pleased. Many did not mince words when talking about Seaborne: Words used to characterize Seaborne included “bitch from hell,” “evil,” “pit bull,” and “Satan incarnate,” among others. Just talking about their experiences with Seaborne brought some of her former clients to the verge of tears.

Seaborne’s reputation

Local lawyers contacted during my investigation were reluctant to be quoted or even identified in connection with this story. There are two obvious reasons for this.

The first reason has to do with how Seaborne seems have been instrumental in interrupting Anne’s law career. Public records indicate Seaborne brought at least one complaint against Anne to the Bar. That complaint was apparently one of five that led to Anne’s being unable to practice law in Arizona. As was noted earlier, Anne told one source that Seaborne was connected with most of the complaints brought against her. Anne’s story seems to be a widely known cautionary tale in Flagstaff’s small legal community. Not surprisingly, many other local attorneys seem to be scared of becoming the target of Seaborne’s wrath.

There is some evidence suggesting one local attorney will not even accept cases in which Seaborne is the opposing attorney. The attorney declined to confirm this, but did not deny it either. This attorney did confirm however that he/she would no longer accept cases in which a certain former Seaborne associate was the opposing attorney.

Another reason local attorneys were reluctant to speak out against Seaborne is because they are supposed to report ethical violations of fellow attorneys, but this rule seems to be rarely abided by. Ethical Rule 8.3(a) of Rule 42, Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, states in part: “A lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority …”

It is probably no coincidence that John Gliege, the only local attorney who was willing to comment publicly on Ellen Seaborne, recently filed a complaint of his own against Seaborne with the State Bar.

Gliege represented Linda Hawkins in her divorce from Walt Cottriel. Court records indicate that Seaborne made false and contradictory statements to Judge Charles Adams during the divorce proceedings.

“I have a duty if a fellow attorney violates or appears to violate the ethics that bind lawyers, to report them to the State Bar,” said Gliege. “If I fail to do that, I can be sanctioned by the State Bar for failing to do that.”

Nonetheless, Gliege said, “Reporting a fellow attorney takes a lot of — introspection.”

Gliege, noted that he was semi-retired after a 28-year law career. Still, he had some reservations about being named in this story, “I don’t cower from things but I recognize in this particular instance there’s going to be some fallout (from this story). … There’s a record that supports that reality.”

Despite his reservations, Gliege clearly stated the pattern he has observed. “It is surprising to me how many people have indicated a poor experience with (Seaborne),” said Gliege. “Over the past — five years, I have talked with several people that were unhappy with … her representation.”

One indication of Seaborne’s reputation among other lawyers is found in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory 2002. Though much of this encyclopedic compendium of information about lawyers and their practices is essentially paid advertising, the directory also includes the Martindale-Hubbell ratings of lawyers. The ratings are based on the confidential opinions of other lawyers in the community who are surveyed by Martindale-Hubbell. Lawyers are generally rated at five-year intervals after they are admitted to the Bar.

The rating of Ellen Seaborne and Associates is “CV.” Ratings are always comprised of two letters. The first letter is a “Legal Ability Rating.” “C” is a “good to high” rating; “B” is “high to very high”; and “A” is “very high to preeminent.” The second letter is always “V” which stands for a “very high” General Ethical Standards Rating.

According to Martindale-Hubbell’s Web site, “Legal Ability Ratings take into consideration the standard of professional ability in the area where the lawyer practices, the lawyer’s expertise, and other professional qualifications. If a lawyer’s practice is limited or specialized, Ratings are based on performance in those specific fields of law.” The site also says, “The General Ethical Standards Rating (second letter) denotes adherence to professional standards of conduct and ethics, reliability, diligence and other criteria relevant to the discharge of professional responsibilities. … A lawyer will not receive a Legal Ability Rating unless he or she has been endorsed for a ‘V.’”

Elsewhere the site says, “Ratings reflect career development. A lawyer’s Rating will generally improve over time. But ratings can be revised downward, or even removed if a decline is noted in ability or ethical standards. A ‘CV’ Rating is an excellent first rating and a statement of a lawyer’s above average ability and very high ethics.”

Though Seaborne’s rating is not “bad” by definition, it is worth remembering that the Martindale-Hubbell Directory has no “bad” ratings. All ratings are positive. But Seaborne has the least positive rating Martindale-Hubbell assigns. A rating of “CV” is hardly what one would expect of a lawyer who, as Seaborne herself put it, has “been practicing family law exclusively longer than anyone else in this town.”

Seaborne appears to have a reputation not only among lawyers, but also among some Flagstaff counselors and therapists who have seen firsthand the emotional devastation Seaborne has apparently wreaked in the lives of some of her clients. As with lawyers, the counselors I spoke to were reluctant to comment publicly about Ellen Seaborne. Some sources suggested that at least one counselor who has dealt with many former Seaborne clients may be forbidden from discussing Seaborne due to some of kind of gag order.

But one counselor who has dealt with many victims of domestic abuse and at least five former Seaborne clients was willing to speak to me on the condition of anonymity. Nearly all of “Avery’s” (not his/her real name) comments were corroborated by other sources.

“I feel that I’ve had to do abuse counseling for clients who’ve been abused by Ellen Seaborne because it’s kind of like double abuse,” said Avery.

“When you first meet her, it’s very pleasant,” said Avery. “She … is very warm, very friendly, seems to be very caring, very involved in your case, gives the impression that she will make your case a top priority, and so that’s a good initial interaction.  And typically what I‘ve seen, and it’s been a pattern in all of the cases in which I’ve been involved, where the client was represented by Ellen Seaborne, that there are big promises initially (but) kind of a lack of information regarding what this is going to cost. …
“And, so I’ve seen that there was an initial investment of a lot of time and then somewhere along the line, the clients become aware that Ellen is not doing her homework, the case has gotten very involved, there are numerous delays, postponements, nothing seems to be happening but a lot of money is being spent. And (clients) look at the bills and in most cases, they find that they’ve been overcharged or billed for things that paralegals have done, or billed twice or billed for things that they just don’t thing they should be billed for.

“And when they confront Ellen about the bill, the interaction quickly goes bad. And when they discover that their case is going sour, typically they want to end the relationship with Ellen Seaborne and the ending never seems to go well. … In fact Ellen apparently charges them for writing up the papers for withdrawing from her practice and her charges do seem to just really get out of control and in many cases she will take legal action against the clients if they can’t pay the bill. … In one case, Ellen sued (a client) and also attempted to take possession of her house. …

“And I’ve seen this happen several times, the case is just totally messed up and other attorneys don’t want to take it.”

Avery has been frustrated by an inability to suggest to Seaborne clients that they not hire Seaborne as their attorney. “It’s kind of against the ethical code because you can’t tell your clients what to do and you can’t interfere in the attorney-client relationship.” Instead, Avery has had to limit the advice given to prospective Seaborne clients. “I would say, ‘Well you might want to get some really good information about what this is going to cost you.’”

During my investigation, I also learned that several current or former staffers at two Flagstaff agencies that routinely counsel victims of domestic abuse are aware that a number of Seaborne’s clients feel that she took advantage of them.

Confidential billing instructions

During the course of my investigation, an anonymous source contacted me and agreed to provide inside information about Seaborne’s office practices. Though I met with this source, I do not know the source’s name. I will call the source “Rene.” What Rene told me was in line with everything else I had learned about Seaborne’s operations. Rene seemed to be a credible source — a person who was understandably cautious about speaking to the press, and clearly familiar with how Seaborne’s office operates.

Rene provided me with copies of five documents Rene said were confidential billing instructions from Seaborne’s office. Though none of the documents contains anything advertising them as having originated in Seaborne’s office, such as a logo or letterhead, one document refers to three office employees by their first names. Another document is a memorandum from “Ellen.”These documents are posted elsewhere on this site.

One of the documents appears to be a memo to the entire staff regarding the importance of confidentiality, specifically with regard to office policies and procedures. It reads in part: “From time to time, fellow lawyers or other staff may question you on how we do things, where we order things, etc. Simple little questions like that can be answered as a courtesy to them. (i.e., ‘We get our binders from the cheapest source possible.’ ‘We use time slips for our billing program.’) Anything much more than that should be referred to me for response.”

Another document is called an “Intake form.” It explains the procedure for handling prospective clients. It instructs staffers to “ask what the case is about; after we have this information we will quote them our standard rates, explaining that these retainers are not quotes for ‘flat fees.’”

The “Intake form” then lists eight commonly provided services. Each service is listed alongside a dollar figure, apparently the standard rate to be quoted. Several of the figures have been crossed off with a pen and a much higher figure written in their place. According to Rene, the higher figures were settled on after discussion at a staff meeting. The list appears to stipulate these standard rates: Uncontested divorce with no children: $4,000 (marked up from $2,000). If the divorce involves children: $4,500 (formerly $3,000). Child custody or paternity in the case of an unmarried couple: $2,500 (formerly $2,000). A divorce involving temporary orders: $4,500 (formerly $3,000). A custody or paternity case involving temporary orders: $3,000 (rate is unchanged). Divorce involving children and temporary orders: $4,000 (rate is unchanged). It is not clear why this last figure was not amended to reflect a rate higher than that of a divorce involving children.

The form goes on to indicate that $1,000 is to be added to these rates if “any other type of additional hearing, i.e., Order of Protection, Temporary Restraining Order, Domestic Violence, etc.” is required. The form also lists rates for estates and trust cases ($1,000), simple wills ($400), and adoptions ($3,000).

Three other documents provided by Rene are titled “Proposal for Initial Retainers.” Each proposal is for a different service, and each service has a different suggested dollar amount for the initial retainer. For instance, one proposal is for a “default petition for dissolution of marriage with children.” The suggested initial retainer is $1,750. The proposal goes on to suggest the billable time for creating various documents normally required. For instance, “a cover letter for acceptance of service” is listed as taking .4 hours, or 24 minutes. The documents suggest that this is to be billed at the paralegal rate of $85 an hour. In other words, a standard cover letter drafted by a paralegal will likely cost at least $34. But elsewhere in the proposals, staff is instructed to factor in an additional “25 percent for ‘administration and client questions.’” The proposal also specifies how much to bill for various tasks performed by an attorney.

After totaling up the billing, the proposal concludes with this statement: “This is what it would cost if we had a TRUE default. No ‘needy’ client! (This won’t happen very often if at all.)” (The emphasis on the word “true” appears in the original.)

Some of the billable time specified for various tasks listed in the proposals appears to correspond to the time billed for similar tasks on copies of client bills obtained during my investigation. Also, the hourly rates for attorneys and paralegals indicated on the proposals corresponds to the current rates charged by Ellen Seaborne’s office. In short, the proposals have every appearance of being genuine, and probably were created in the last two or three years.

Standing alone, the confidential documents provided by Rene raise serious questions about Seaborne’s honesty and ethics. Why would she ask her staff to provide elusive and ambiguous answers when asked by outsiders about even the simplest things, such as, “Where do you get your binders?” unless she had something to hide?

These documents raise even more serious questions in light of Seaborne’s “Attorney-client fee contract,” a copy of which Seaborne provided to me. Seaborne normally requires her clients to sign the fee contract. On Page 3 of the 10-page contract, it says, “Our fees are billed monthly as the services are rendered, and are based primarily on the time and effort required. …”  Note that the contract indicates fees are “based on the time and effort required,” not on a confidential list of rates charged for various services. Nor does it say that the time and effort required may be calculated based on prior experiences with other clients, as is indicated on the confidential Intake form.

Seaborne’s “Attorney-client fee contract” and a separate document titled “General office and billing information” both contain a number of interesting passages that may suggest the frequency with which Seaborne’s fees are questioned by clients. The documents seem to have an authoritative answer to almost any conceivable question a client might have about a bill, and the answers almost always favor Seaborne’s financial interests. Where the wording of these documents might seem to favor the client, the reality experienced by Seaborne clients would seem to rarely, if ever, benefit from such wording. For instance, the fee contract says of the initial retainer: “A certain portion of this minimum fee might be refundable.” However, none of the former Seaborne clients interviewed for this story mentioned that they received a refund of any portion their initial retainer. Seaborne’s “Attorney-client fee contract” and “General office and billing information” documents are posted elsewhere on this site.

The complaints against Ellen Seaborne are numerous, and sometimes, complex. The story published here barely scratches the surface of what was learned in the course of my investigation. Due to space and time limitations, it has not been possible to say much about the shocking and sometimes tragic stories of the various complainants. Nor has it been possible to say much about how the Arizona State Bar has responded to the complaints against Ellen Seaborne. In the coming weeks, and perhaps months, I hope to flesh out many of the details of this story. I will post revised versions of this story, and possibly other related stories on this Web site. If there appears to be sufficient community interest, additional stories about Ellen Seaborne may also be published in the paper version of Flagstaff Tea Party.  

SIDEBAR 1

The Bar’s response

The Arizona State Bar has investigated 10 of 16 complaints against Ellen Seaborne filed in the last three years. The six complaints that were not investigated either did not allege ethical violations as defined by the Rules of Professional Conduct or were lacking in evidence.

Of the 10 complaints against Ellen Seaborne that were investigated, three were found to potentially warrant disciplinary action due to a probable ethical violation.

In the complaint of Shari Curry, a former Seaborne client, formal disciplinary proceedings were delayed until a report was issued on the success of fee arbitration. Though Curry says she was not satisfied with the results of fee arbitration, the arbitration was considered to be “successful” by the Bar, and Curry’s complaint was effectively “dismissed.” The arbitration was conducted by another Flagstaff attorney, who wrote in his “Arbitration Award” statement to the Bar that Curry’s complaints of ethical impropriety were not relevant to the arbitration proceeding.

The complaint of another former client, Jarry Brandon, resulted in Seaborne being ordered to attend a one-day ethics enhancement class. The class is much like the traffic classes motorists are allowed to attend to avoid having a traffic ticket permanently recorded on their driving record.

Two months after the class, another complaint against Seaborne also resulted in Seaborne’s being ordered to attend an ethics enhancement class. This complaint was filed by an opposing client. However, because Seaborne had recently attended such a class, the completed class was credited toward the new complaint, and the new complaint was thus dismissed.

It is not always obvious from the complaints against Seaborne why some warranted investigation and some did not. Even less clear is why only a few complaints that were investigated were found to potentially warrant formal discipline, while most were not. Most baffling of all is why, out of 16 complaints, not a single one resulted in more than a slap on the wrist.  

  — Dan Frazier

SIDEBAR 2

Group exploring class-action suit, ballot initiative

A group of former Seaborne clients and others who feel they have been wronged by Ellen Seaborne is forming to gather additional information. If you would like to be heard in confidence, OR be part of developing an action plan (i.e. lawyer-assisted joint complaint to the Bar, class action suit, etc.), you may wish to join this group. The group may also explore the possibility of putting an initiative on the ballot in an effort to improve Arizona’s lawyer regulation system. For more information, please write to the Coalition for Legal Reform, P.O. Box 162, Flagstaff, AZ 86002, or e-mail: azlegalreform@yahoo.com