A US Criminal Defence Lawyer Charged Clients $50,500, Billed First-Class Flights for a Single Hearing, and Landed an Indefinite Supreme Court Suspension

The Missouri Supreme Court has handed criminal defence lawyer Susan K. Roach an indefinite suspension after she billed two clients $50,500, flew first class at their expense, and breached fundamental conflict-of-interest safeguards. The regulatory sanction bars Roach from applying for professional reinstatement for at least three years following an inquiry by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel.

When individuals secure private counsel during high-stakes criminal investigations, they place total faith in their advocate’s integrity. Yet procedural lapses and aggressive billing practices can demolish a client’s defence before trial even begins.

The disciplinary ruling exposes what happens when statutory duties collapse under the weight of excessive invoices and severe administrative missteps.

How an Interstate Traffic Stop Led to a Disciplinary Reckoning

The controversy stems from the 2022 arrest of Florida residents Marina A. and her daughter, Vianca R., as they drove across Missouri. State Highway Patrol officers pulled over their vehicle, conducted a roadside search, and seized 80 pounds of cannabis, a Glock handgun, and $2,900 in physical cash.

Facing serious felony charges in Lafayette County, the pair turned to an online search to obtain emergency legal representation. They selected Roach without realising her primary office sat three-quarters of the way across the state, a logistical obstacle she did not disclose during intake.

Roach demanded an initial fee of $7,500 per person alongside a $450 hourly rate. Both mother and daughter believed that the initial $15,000 outlay covered the entirety of their defence.

Instead, their invoices rapidly climbed past $50,500.

First-Class Airfare, Hotel Stays, and Search Engine Invoices

Disciplinary regulators uncovered multiple breaches of Missouri professional conduct rules, including Rule 4-1.5(a) governing fees and Rule 4-1.15(a) regarding trust accounts. Roach withdrew funds from her client trust account before the hours had actually been logged, an irregularity she attributed to staff adjustments.

The charges escalated drastically around a routine initial court appearance on 13 July 2022. Roach, who was visiting San Francisco, chose not to request a routine continuance.

Instead, she booked premium transit across the country and billed the costs straight to her clients.

• Travel invoicing: Roach billed 17 hours of transit time flying first class from California to Kansas City, including two nights at The Raphael Hotel and local taxi rides.
• Hearing costs: The single initial court appearance generated an astonishing $13,750 in total fees and expenses.
• Research line items: The firm entered basic web search engine queries on invoices under the designation of substantive legal research.
• Billing silence: The clients received no formal breakdown of expenses between mid-July and late September, despite repeated staff requests for more money.

Alarms sounded when a separate Florida attorney reviewed the invoices, confirmed the numbers were grossly out of proportion, and advised both women to change counsel immediately.

The Hidden Peril of Dual Representation and Conflict Waivers

Financial excess was not the sole violation cited by the Supreme Court. Roach also violated Rule 4-1.7 by undertaking concurrent representation of co-defendants whose legal interests were fundamentally at odds.

In criminal proceedings involving multiple defendants, one party often bears different culpability or holds leverage to negotiate reduced penalties. Ethical practice demands independent vetting to ensure neither person is compromised.

Unchecked Conflicts and Subpar Plea Bargains

Roach failed to conduct separate client interviews and never secured a formal conflict waiver from the pair. The fee agreements contained contradictory boilerplate language guaranteeing sole loyalty, yet both co-defendants signed identical paperwork.

The initial plea agreements negotiated under Roach left the mother facing a crushing 10-year prison term, while her daughter received a suspended sentence alongside five years of probation. Those terms collapsed once independent advocate John O’Connor took over the mother’s case.

O’Connor swiftly renegotiated the resolution, securing Marina a suspended execution of a 15-year sentence tied to five years of probation, matching the non-custodial outcome of her daughter.

Why Retaining the Right Counsel Dictates Case Survival

The Missouri enforcement action underscores an urgent lesson for anyone navigating the criminal justice system: the calibre and independence of an attorney can dictate whether a defendant stays free or faces prison. Similar high-wire dynamics emerge when civil conflicts collide with criminal inquiries, such as contested divorce actions where a domestic dispute triggers law enforcement intervention.

Legal authorities consistently advise prospective clients to scrutinise fee structures, require written accounting, and demand separate counsel whenever co-defendants or cross-claims exist. Retaining competent advocacy should protect a defendant against accusations, not create an entirely new set of financial and legal perils.

💡 Retaining proper legal counsel demands relentless scrutiny over fee transparency, geographic proximity, and clear division of loyalty across every stage of a proceeding.

🔍 Regulators will intervene when professional standards are compromised, but clients must stay proactive by reviewing every monthly ledger and questioning irregular costs early.

📌 Have you ever encountered questionable billing practices or conflicts of interest with legal representation? Share your perspective and experiences below.