Fogarty v. State

513 S.E.2d 493 (1999)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was arrested and charged with kidnapping, aggravated assault, simple battery and nine counts of stalking. Without D's knowledge, his wife entered into an agreement to pay defense counsel's $25,000 fee in advance. It was agreed that, if the charges were dismissed and a new suspect identified, then the fee would be reduced to $10,000. The case proceeded to trial. A jury acquitted D of six of the stalking counts but found him guilty of the six other counts. D appealed. D claimed that the fee agreement created a conflict of interest where the attorney would earn more money if the case when to trial. The Court of Appeals found that the agreement was an improper contingency fee contract which 'created an actual conflict of interest for his trial counsel in that it made it more lucrative for trial counsel not to pursue avenues that might lead to dismissal of the charges against [Fogarty] and the identification of a new suspect.' But it affirmed because D had failed to show that the fee arrangement had any adverse effect upon defense counsel's performance. D appealed.