Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractattorneyliabilityappealtrialsustained

contractplaintiffdefendantattorneyliabilitytrial

Related Cases

Fracasse v. Brent, 6 Cal.3d 784, 494 P.2d 9, 100 Cal.Rptr. 385

Facts

George Fracasse, a licensed attorney, was retained by Ray Raka Brent to pursue a personal injury claim under a written contingent fee agreement. The agreement stipulated that Fracasse would receive a percentage of any recovery. Before any recovery was made, Brent discharged Fracasse and hired another attorney. Fracasse then filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the contract was valid and that he had a right to a portion of any recovery. The trial court sustained a demurrer to his complaint, leading to this appeal.

Plaintiff, George Fracasse, is a duly licensed attorney at law, who was retained by defendant Ray Raka Brent to prosecute a claim for personal injuries in her behalf.

Issue

Whether an attorney who has been discharged without cause can bring a declaratory relief action to determine his rights under a contingency fee contract before the underlying claim has been resolved.

Whether an attorney at law who has been discharged without cause by his client may bring a declaratory relief action to obtain a determination of his rights under a written contingency fee contract.

Rule

An attorney discharged with or without cause is entitled to recover the reasonable value of services rendered up to the time of discharge, and a cause of action for compensation under a contingent fee contract does not accrue until the stated contingency occurs.

We hold that an attorney discharged with or without cause is entitled to recover the reasonable value of his services rendered to the time of discharge.

Analysis

The court applied the rule that an attorney's right to compensation is contingent upon the occurrence of the stated contingency in the contract. Since Fracasse's action was deemed premature, as no recovery had yet been made in the underlying personal injury case, the court found that there was no present controversy justifying declaratory relief. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the client's right to discharge their attorney without incurring an absolute obligation to pay fees until the outcome of the underlying claim is known.

The court emphasized the importance of protecting the client's right to discharge their attorney without incurring an absolute obligation to pay fees until the outcome of the underlying claim is known.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Fracasse's action for declaratory relief was premature and that he was not entitled to recover under the contingency fee contract until the contingency occurred.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Who won?

Ray Raka Brent prevailed in the case because the court upheld her right to discharge her attorney without incurring liability for the full fee specified in the contract until the underlying claim was resolved.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Dows v. Wood, 211 F.3d 480, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4399

Tolson v. Sistrunk, 332 Ga.App. 324, 772 S.E.2d 416

In re Estate of Howe, 689 N.W.2d 22, 2004 S.D. 118

Marks v. Intergraph Corp., Inc., 740 So.2d 1066

Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471, 71 USLW 4560, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5586, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7015, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 459