The Ethics section (below) describes a case in which a paralegal who had been orally promised a bonus of $1,065,000 was deprived of the bonus in a dispute because no written agreement existed as to the bonus as would have been required by the Statute of Frauds. That an agreement was had was beyond dispute, because there existed a (secret) recording detailing the promise of the bonus between the paralegal and his/her employer. As your text explains, the Statute of Frauds requires certain types of contracts (such as contracts to buy or sale land) to be both made in writing and executed with the physical signatures of all of the parties involved. This requirement was clearly not met. Further, the undisclosed recording of the agreement constitutes a crime. Was a fair result handed down in this matter? What, if anything, would you do to modify the Court's decision?

 

Transcribed Image Text:

Ethics Paralegal Loses $900,000 Bonus Because of the Statute of Frauds The end result may not seem 'fair' to Sawyer. The Stat- ute of Frauds, by its own terms, can be considered 'harsh' in that it will bar oral agreements between parties under certain conditions. This is simply the nature of the beast." held that the Statute of Frauds required the bonus agree- ment between Sawyer and Mills to be in writing to be enforceable. Because the oral agreement exceeded one year, the court held that it did not meet the requirements of the Statute of Frauds and was therefore unenforceable. -Ishmael, Trial Court Judge The trial court judge stated: Barbara Lucinda Sawyer worked as a paralegal for Melbourne Mills, Jr. an attorney at a law firm. Sawyer pro- nosed that Mills and the law firm become engaged in class action lawsuits. Mills agreed to pay Sawyer an unspeci- fied bonus when "the ship comes in." After Sawyer's assistance and persistence, the law firm became involved in class action litigation-primarily the Fen-Phen pharma- ceutical liability class action litigation. After the law firm received millions of dollars in fees from the Fen-Phen class action lawsuits, Sawyer and her husband Steve met with Mills to discuss Sawyers' bonus. Mills oraly agreed to pay Sawyer $1,065,000 as a bonus to be paid in monthly installments over 107 months. Sawyer secretly tape recorded the conversation. Mills later refused to sign a written contract conveying the terms of the oral agreement. After Mills had paid $165,000, he quit meking further payments. Sawyer sued Mills to collect the remaining $900,000. Mills defended, arguing that the oral contract exceeded one year and was therefore unenforceable because it was not in writing, as required by the Statute of Frauds. The jury ruled in favor of Sawyer. Mills made a motion to the trial court judge to refuse to enforce the oral contract against him. The trial court The Court is aware of the apparent harshness of this ruling. The trial jury found, and the Court heard Mills state on the tape recording, that he agreed to make monthly payments to Sawyer which would eventually total over One Million Dollars. Honoring that oral agree- ment would be the "moral" and "right" thing for Mills to do. However, this Court is obligated by Oath of Office and Kentucky law, to consider cases based on the facts presented and the applicable law. The end result may not seem "fair" to Sawyer. The Statute of Frauds, by its own terms, can be considered "harsh" in that it will bar oral agreements between parties under certain condi- tions. This is simply the nature of the beast. The court of appeals of Kentucky affirmed the trial court's decision. Sawyer v. Mills, Web 2007 Ky. App. Lexis 92 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky) Ethics Questions Should Mills do the "moral" thing and honor his oral agreement with Sawyer? How often do you think the application of the Statute of Frauds leads to an unfair result? Ethics Paralegal Loses $900,000 Bonus Because of the Statute of Frauds The end result may not seem 'fair' to Sawyer. The Stat- ute of Frauds, by its own terms, can be considered 'harsh' in that it will bar oral agreements between parties under certain conditions. This is simply the nature of the beast." held that the Statute of Frauds required the bonus agree- ment between Sawyer and Mills to be in writing to be enforceable. Because the oral agreement exceeded one year, the court held that it did not meet the requirements of the Statute of Frauds and was therefore unenforceable. -Ishmael, Trial Court Judge The trial court judge stated: Barbara Lucinda Sawyer worked as a paralegal for Melbourne Mills, Jr. an attorney at a law firm. Sawyer pro- nosed that Mills and the law firm become engaged in class action lawsuits. Mills agreed to pay Sawyer an unspeci- fied bonus when "the ship comes in." After Sawyer's assistance and persistence, the law firm became involved in class action litigation-primarily the Fen-Phen pharma- ceutical liability class action litigation. After the law firm received millions of dollars in fees from the Fen-Phen class action lawsuits, Sawyer and her husband Steve met with Mills to discuss Sawyers' bonus. Mills oraly agreed to pay Sawyer $1,065,000 as a bonus to be paid in monthly installments over 107 months. Sawyer secretly tape recorded the conversation. Mills later refused to sign a written contract conveying the terms of the oral agreement. After Mills had paid $165,000, he quit meking further payments. Sawyer sued Mills to collect the remaining $900,000. Mills defended, arguing that the oral contract exceeded one year and was therefore unenforceable because it was not in writing, as required by the Statute of Frauds. The jury ruled in favor of Sawyer. Mills made a motion to the trial court judge to refuse to enforce the oral contract against him. The trial court The Court is aware of the apparent harshness of this ruling. The trial jury found, and the Court heard Mills state on the tape recording, that he agreed to make monthly payments to Sawyer which would eventually total over One Million Dollars. Honoring that oral agree- ment would be the "moral" and "right" thing for Mills to do. However, this Court is obligated by Oath of Office and Kentucky law, to consider cases based on the facts presented and the applicable law. The end result may not seem "fair" to Sawyer. The Statute of Frauds, by its own terms, can be considered "harsh" in that it will bar oral agreements between parties under certain condi- tions. This is simply the nature of the beast. The court of appeals of Kentucky affirmed the trial court's decision. Sawyer v. Mills, Web 2007 Ky. App. Lexis 92 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky) Ethics Questions Should Mills do the "moral" thing and honor his oral agreement with Sawyer? How often do you think the application of the Statute of Frauds leads to an unfair result?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Sawyer v Mills a 2007 case included an oral promise of a bonus payment totaling 1065000 Barbra Sawye... View the full answer