In Brief
- The Missouri Supreme Court suspended criminal defense attorney Susan K. Roach indefinitely, with no eligibility to apply for reinstatement for three years.
- The court found violations involving unreasonable fees, conflicts of interest and improper handling of client trust account funds.
- Roach charged two clients a combined $50,500, including $13,750 for attending an initial court appearance, travel time, first-class airfare, hotel accommodations and transportation.
- The attorney failed to conduct separate client interviews or obtain a conflict waiver. The clients later retained new counsel, who negotiated a more favorable plea outcome for the mother.
A criminal defense attorney’s license was suspended indefinitely with no leave to apply for reinstatement for a period of three years after the Missouri Supreme Court agreed with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel that she committed multiple rules violations.
The court found Susan K. Roach violated rules 4-1.5(a) (fees), 4-1.7 (conflict of interest) and 4-1.15(a) (trust accounts), and that suspension with no leave to re-apply was the correct disciplinary measure.
The matter originated with Roach’s representation of a mother and daughter — Marina A. and Vianca R. — from Florida facing criminal charges in Missouri.
In 2022, the mother and daughter were traveling through Missouri when they were stopped by the State Highway Patrol. Officers searched the clients’ vehicle and found approximately 80 pounds of marijuana, a Glock handgun and $2,900 in cash.
Both faced criminal charges and hired Roach to represent them.
“The clients found respondent’s name after completing a google search,” according to the OCDC. “The clients were not familiar with Missouri’s geography and respondent never advised the clients she was located three fourths of the way across Missouri from Lafayette County.”
Roach agreed to represent the women once each paid $7,500. Roach’s fee agreement specified that she would charge $450 an hour for her services. Both clients said they believed the initial payments of $7,500 would cover the entire cost of Roach’s representation.
“Respondent initially placed the funds from the clients in her trust account, but the funds were moved out of the trust account before the fees had been earned,” the OCDC reported. “Respondent admitted that moving the fees before they had been earned violated the trust accounting rules. Respondent testified at the hearing that her staff had made that adjustment ‘a day or two before the money had been earned on a couple of occasions.”
Roach never interviewed the mother and daughter separately about their cases or had them sign a conflict waiver despite the identical fee agreements both signed stating: “[t]he Roach Law Firm agrees that they shall not represent anyone other than me in this matter who shall have a conflicting interest to my interest and that the payment of the initial above referenced fixed fee [of $7,500] is in consideration thereof.”
The trial court scheduled the mother and daughter’s initial court appearances for July 13, 2022, a date during which Roach knew she would be in San Francisco, California. Despite this, she did not request a continuance and instead flew first class to Kansas City the day before the hearing and charged her clients for travel costs including hotel costs and taxis despite not informing them they would have to pay for her travel.
RELATED: More attorney discipline stories
“Respondent did not provide the clients with any billing statements for work done after July 12, 2022, until September 28, 2022,” according to the OCDC. “The clients became concerned, however, because Respondent’s staff repeatedly requested additional funds.”
After growing increasingly concerned with Roach’s representation, the two clients sought advice from a Florida criminal defense attorney who informed them the fees were excessive. They told Roach they were seeking new counsel and she sent them a billing statement.
“Respondent charged the clients a total of $13,750 to attend the July 13, 2022, initial court appearance,” the OCDC reported. “This included billing for the time she spent making travel arrangements, billing for 17 hours of travel time to and from San Francisco, flying first class, staying at The Raphael Hotel for two nights, and taxi fees to and from the airport and the hotel.”
She also charged the clients for time spent googling various matters, labeling it research.
In total, her representation cost the clients $50,500.
Additionally, the plea offers she obtained for her clients were worse than those the new counsel obtained. Under the original plea agreements Marina faced ten years imprisonment and Vianca a suspended sentence with five years of probation.
“Marina’s new counsel, John O’Connor, was able to negotiate a plea deal whereby she received a suspended execution of a 15-year sentence with 5 years’ probation, rather than a prison sentence,” the OCDC wrote. Vianca accepted the five years of probation.
The case is: In re: Susan Kreher Roach, Case no. SC101540
Leave a Reply