Appeals court reverses penalty against Hais firm

Samuel Hais and Susan Hais

An appeals court took less than two weeks to decide a $25,000 sanction against a St. Louis family law firm was a mistake.

A five-page opinion the Missouri Court of Appeals released this morning threw out the penalty against Hais, Hais, Goldberg & Coyne. St. Louis County Judge Barbara Wallace had levied the amount against the firm last year over its handling of emailed evidence in a contentious custody dispute. The case, argued in appeals court Feb. 8, became the talk of the county family law bar last year and was highlighted in Missouri Lawyers Weekly in April.

A father in a years-long custody dispute claimed three Hais firm attorneys received confidential emails he exchanged with his attorneys and others about the case. The Hais attorneys reviewed the emails and put notes on some of them, according to the opinion. They contended they never used the emails during their representation.

Wallace should have found or evidence should have shown that the Hais attorneys were acting in “bad faith,” deliberately doing wrong or being dishonest, according to the opinion written by Judge Kenneth Romines and agreed to by Judges Kathianne Knaup Crane and Roy Richter.

“Nothing in the record demonstrates that Appellant was acting with any of those purposes,” Romines wrote. “To the contrary, Appellant contacted an expert in legal ethics soon after it received the emails and followed the expert’s advice as to how to handle the emails.”

Name partners Susan and Samuel Hais are “just thrilled” at what they view as a vindication, said Alan Mandel, an attorney with Mandel & Mandel who represented the Hais firm.

“Basically what the court is finding is the Haises went kind of above and beyond and the trial court is just wrong with a capital W, with all due respect to Judge Wallace,” Mandel said. “I don’t think I could’ve asked for a better opinion.”

A phone message left on Wallace’s clerk’s voice mail was not immediately returned.

The appeals court acknowledged that trial judges have the power to issue sanctions, said Lawrence Gillespie, who represented the father at the appeals court.

“The decision is based on the trial court abusing its discretion,” said Gillespie, of Gillespie, Hetlage & Coughlin. “To get there you have to find there’s no evidence in the record to support what it did.”

Gillespie said he hadn’t yet spoken to trial attorney Jay Fiske about what the next step would be. Fiske did not immediately return a phone call.

The case is A.J.H by next friend M.J.H., v. M.A.H.S. v. Hais, Hais, Goldberger & Coyne,  ED96873.

Related story

St. Louis family law firm hit with $25,000 sanction, discipline complaints

Judge Barbara Wallace’s March 15 sanction judgment