| Case Digest |
Respondent 1 (167 DB 2003) acted as executor of a decedent’s estate and Respondent 2 (168 DB 2003) acted as his counsel. On advice of Respondent 2, Respondent 1 charged fees found by the Orphan’s Court to be clearly excessive and paid Respondent 2 similar fees. Charges against Respondent 1 were dismissed based upon his reliance on Respondent 2. Respondent 2 received private discipline because of his long history of practice without prior discipline, advanced age, retirement from practice, and completion of restitution. |
