Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

contractdamagesattorneystatutetrialwillunjust enrichment
contractsettlementattorneystatuteappealtrialbad faithunjust enrichment

Related Cases

Nordling v. Northern States Power Co., 478 N.W.2d 498, 60 USLW 2406, 124 Lab.Cas. P 57,260, 7 IER Cases 10
View Case »
Financial General Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger, 680 F.2d 768, 220 U.S.App.D.C. 219, 34 Fed.R.Serv.2d 17, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 98,674
View Case »
Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 109 S.Ct. 594, 102 L.Ed.2d 624
View Case »
Hoffert v. General Motors Corp., 656 F.2d 161
View Case »
Hizey v. Carpenter, 119 Wash.2d 251, 830 P.2d 646, 60 USLW 2765
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gagne v. Vaccaro, 255 Conn. 390, 766 A.2d 416

Facts

Richard Aldrich was injured while working for RK Contractors and sought representation from attorney J. William Gagne, who agreed to a 25% contingency fee but did not put the agreement in writing. After several years of work, Aldrich became dissatisfied with Gagne's progress and contacted successor attorney Enrico Vaccaro, who promised a lower fee and agreed to pay Gagne a fair share of the fees. Aldrich ultimately discharged Gagne and retained Vaccaro, who settled the case for $1,750,000. Gagne later sought to recover his fees from Vaccaro, leading to the legal dispute.

The evidence at trial established the following facts. In the fall of 1989, Richard Aldrich was injured while working for RK Contractors on construction of the Fusco Building, Goodwin Plaza, in Hartford.

Issue

Whether an attorney can recover fees from a successor attorney under the doctrines of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment in the absence of a written contingency fee agreement, as required by General Statutes § 52–251c.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether, in the absence of a written contingency fee agreement between an attorney and his client, as required by General Statutes § 52–251c, recovery by that attorney against a successor attorney should be permitted on the basis of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment, regardless of whether bad faith by the successor attorney or the client's waiver of § 52–251c has been established.

Rule

The court applied the doctrines of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, which allow recovery for services rendered even in the absence of a formal contract, to determine if Gagne could recover fees from Vaccaro despite the lack of a written agreement.

Quantum meruit is a theory of contract recovery that does not depend upon the existence of a contract, either express or implied in fact.

Analysis

The court found that Gagne's failure to comply with the statute requiring a written fee agreement did not preclude him from recovering fees from Vaccaro. The court emphasized that the principles of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment are designed to prevent unjust enrichment and ensure that a party who has rendered services receives reasonable compensation. The jury had determined that Vaccaro benefited from Gagne's work, and thus it would be inequitable for Vaccaro to retain that benefit without compensating Gagne.

We are persuaded by Judge Lavery's dissenting opinion in Alan E. Silver, P.C., in which he took issue with the majority's failure to cite any substantive applicable law, statutory or common, compelling the conclusion that a violation of § 52–251c is an outright bar to an attorney's action in quantum meruit or unjust enrichment against a successor attorney.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment that had favored Vaccaro and reinstated the jury's award of damages to Gagne, concluding that he was entitled to recover fees based on the principles of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.

Accordingly, we reverse that part of the decision in Alan E. Silver, P.C., which held that, in the absence of a written fee agreement between an attorney and the client, an attorney who has worked on a personal injury case cannot, under the doctrine of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment, collect his fee from a successor attorney after settlement.

Who won?

Gagne prevailed in the case because the court found that he was entitled to recover fees for the services he rendered, despite the lack of a written agreement, based on the doctrines of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.

Gagne was required to prove in the trial court that Vaccaro had received a benefit at his expense under circumstances that would otherwise make it unjust for Vaccaro to retain the benefit.

You must be