Supporters cry foul over guardian story

Attorney Robert E. Monroe has some loyal friends, it seems. Last week, they let The N&O have it over a Sunday front-page article that focused on the compensation that Monroe receives for handling legal guardianship cases in Wake County.

The article, headlined "Financial guardian takes in millions," reported that Monroe had been paid $3.4 million since 1991 from the assets of people declared incompetent by Wake County courts. It quoted several people as saying Monroe's compensation was excessive and a state lawmaker who said Monroe was an example of a problem with guardianship oversight that needs a legislative fix.

But Monroe's defenders -- in letters to the editor, e-mail and phone calls -- said the article was unfair in focusing on Monroe instead of the system within which, they said, he operated legally and ethically. "Whether or not there's a problem with the compensation system for guardians is one thing," said Robert Duggins, a Raleigh attorney who said he's a friend of Monroe but does not work with him professionally. "To make Bob the highlight of that, rather than the system, seems really wrong to me."

"Over the next few months, The N&O may repeatedly pat itself on the back and trumpet this work as another example of its investigative prowess," Michael E. Bumgarner wrote in a letter to the editor. "Left behind in this will be an attempt to sully the reputation of an exemplary attorney and civic-minded citizen."

The article, with several sidebars, was written by Thomas Goldsmith, The N&O's "generations" reporter. That means he covers the aging population. He worked on the project on and off for seven months, in the process reviewing the files of more than 300 guardianship cases, involving thousands of pages, most of them handled by Monroe.

Goldsmith's key findings were that Monroe routinely asked for and received the maximum 5 percent commission and expenses allowed under state law, that other counties in North Carolina typically do not allow that maximum and that clerks of court have not provided much scrutiny of the compensation. The current Wake clerk, Lorrin Freeman, said she was prompted by Goldsmith's examination to revise the county's awarding of guardianship cases.

GOLDSMITH DEVOTED SOME SPACE to Monroe's defense of his awards -- that all were approved by court officials, they included the costs of paying his multi-person staff and they offset cases for which he received no compensation. He wrote that Monroe "is widely described as skilled, likable and hard-working." The story did not suggest legal wrongdoing.

Monroe, in a phone interview with me, acknowledged that Goldsmith had gone to some lengths to report the attorney's side of the compensation issue. "I realize that and appreciate him trying to do that."

But, he said, "There's some kind of innuendo that runs through the article that says I did something wrong. I don't think I did anything wrong. I don't think it was fair."

He objected to the "millions" headline, which he said was misleading. (I agree with that; it does not strike me as unusual for a law practice to pull in $3.4 million cumulatively over 16 years from its specialty area. But always harvesting the maximum 5 percent, averaging $13,000 per case, does raise my eyebrows.)

Monroe also said Goldsmith didn't provide enough context in the examples he cited to show the amount of work the lawyer did and the benefits he produced for his wards, such as selling a ward's real estate for substantial gains.

GUARDIANS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE the court a full accounting of their work. I'd like to have seen a sidebar focusing on one case that detailed the claims for payment submitted by Monroe, including receipts and disbursements, expenses, hours worked, legal fees and any other charges that a clerk of court would consider in deciding compensation. That might have shown that he earned his pay; it might have shown that he was overpaid.