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

contractbreach of contractlawyerappealdeclaratory judgment

contractbreach of contracttortlitigationlawyerappealdeclaratory judgment

Related Cases

Post v. Bregman, 349 Md. 142, 707 A.2d 806

Facts

Alan F. Post and Douglas Bregman entered into a fee-splitting agreement regarding a legal case that generated a $260,000 fee. Post was to receive 60% of the fee, while Bregman was to receive 40%. After the case settled, Post refused to pay Bregman the agreed amount, claiming that Bregman had not performed sufficient work to warrant the fee. Post filed for a declaratory judgment asserting that honoring the fee-splitting arrangement would violate the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, while Bregman counterclaimed for breach of contract.

Post received the entire one-third share, $260,000, and he then balked at paying Bregman the 40% called for in the letter agreement ($104,000), contending that Bregman had done insufficient work to warrant a fee in that amount.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the fee-sharing agreement was subject to the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct and whether it could be rendered unenforceable if found to violate that rule.

The principal basis for that position was that there was, in fact, a joint responsibility on the part of Post and Bregman for the representation of Taylor.

Rule

The Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 1.5(e), governs the splitting of fees among lawyers who are not part of the same firm, requiring that the division be in proportion to the services performed or that there be a written agreement with the client assuming joint responsibility for the representation.

MLRPC Rule 1.5 Rule 1.5 deals generally with lawyers' fees.

Analysis

The court found that the fee agreement was clear and unambiguous, determining that Post had breached the contract by not paying Bregman. The court ruled that the ethical argument regarding the violation of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct did not serve as a defense to the breach of contract claim, as Post had proposed the fee arrangement himself.

The court viewed the case, essentially, as a breach of contract action, to which the ethical argument made in Post's complaint for declaratory judgment was offered as a defense.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings, indicating that the enforceability of the fee-sharing agreement under the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct needed to be addressed.

Judgment of Court of Special Appeals reversed; case remanded with instructions.

Who won?

Bregman prevailed in the case, as the court found that Post had breached the clear and unambiguous fee agreement, and the ethical considerations raised by Post did not negate the enforceability of the contract.

Bregman asserted that his firm had engaged in a 'wide array of legal services' in connection with the tort litigation, that it was co-counsel of record throughout the litigation, that it was 'jointly responsible' for Taylor's representation.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password