But wait, there are actually more benefits than one can expect from the agreements to retainer. By collaborating on the basis of Retainer, it is very likely that you will actively conceal information and not just passively disclose information. He actively inserted the biological father to « counsel » without revealing the very purpose of the relationship. And he contacted the biological father`s lawyer and actively deceived him about the adoption by assuring him that no adoption would take place without the biological father`s consent. This exchange was not properly disclosed to the court that the biological mother`s lawyer had advised not to inform the biological father of the birth, adoption plans or anything else.  The biological father would have struggled to move forward since the birth of the child, when the fact of the birth of the child was hidden from him. Krigel also did not inform the court that the biological father had hired a lawyer, but gave the impression that the father had done nothing to assert his parental rights.  And even if Krigel was unaware of the biological mother`s lies to the biological father, he must have known that the entire testimony was totally imprecise and incomplete. Krigel was not trying to correct the impression created by the examination of the biological mother that the biological father, who was aware of the birth, deliberately escapes his responsibilities and does not care about the well-being of the child.  At Mississippi Bar v. Land, the lawyer clashed with the rules by responding to the discovery in such a way that it « was not only unactivated, but also misleading, as it tended to give the impression of a bad condition. »  While Lawyer Land`s statements may have been technically true, they were « calculated to deceive », much like Krigel`s carefully constructed questions to the biological mother. . Id.
at *11-13. (« It is clear that there was no formal, explicit and explicit relationship. A resitator was never signed, Miss Lemley did not pay legal fees to the Kaiser company, and the company never sent her an invoice. »). Interestingly, Krigel, whose case is being debated elsewhere, was previously sued by biological parents for abuse of rights, who claimed that he had given them erroneous advice on the revocability of their consent to adoption. Collins v. Mo. Bar Plan, 157 P.W.3d 726, 730-31 (mo. Ct. App. 2005).
He defended himself by arguing that in reality he did not represent them. Id. at 736. The Court of Appeal found that the biological parents had provided sufficient evidence to establish a factual issue on this point and asked the trial to determine whether there was a lawyer-client relationship. Id. In re Krigel, the lawyer earned more than $20,000 in fees for representing the biological mother and admitted that he had worked less than ten hours on the case.  Interestingly, Krigel`s law firm`s website contains an article about the cost of adoption, remembering that it`s best to know in advance what fees and expenses you can expect so you can plan and budget accordingly.  The judge, who eventually removed the child from the prospective adoptive parents and transferred custody to the biological father, questioned the amount of the fee and found that the high amount was « for a minimal role in the litigation. »  Although the Model Rules prohibit lawyers from charging inappropriate fees, Krigel has not been prosecuted for violating this rule.  However, « doing a lot for very little is as likely to be contrary to Rule 1.5(a) as it is to do nothing. »  You are right and we see where your concerns come from. . . .