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

attorney
attorney

Related Cases

Chevron Corp. v. Salazar, 275 F.R.D. 437
View Case »
Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 99 Ohio St.3d 416, 793 N.E.2d 425, 2003 -Ohio- 4048
View Case »
Montgomery v. Aetna Plywood, Inc., 231 F.3d 399
View Case »
Rosner v. Jiro Trading Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1996 WL 312354
View Case »
Makins v. District of Columbia, 861 A.2d 590
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Redd v. Hill, 304 P.3d 861, 737 Utah Adv. Rep. 35, 2013 UT 35

Facts

Virginia Hill entered into a contingency fee agreement with attorney Don Redd, which stated that Redd was entitled to one-third of all monies paid to or in Hill's behalf related to her cause of action. After a lengthy legal battle, Hill was awarded a primary judgment and subsequently sought to recover attorney fees, which the district court awarded based on an hourly rate rather than the contingency fee. Redd claimed one-third of the awarded attorney fees, leading to the current dispute after Hill did not pay him.

Virginia Hill entered into a contingency fee agreement with attorney Don Redd, which stated that Redd was entitled to one-third of all monies paid to or in Hill's behalf related to her cause of action.

Issue

Whether the contingency fee agreement between Redd and Hill entitles Redd to a portion of the supplemental attorney fees awarded to Hill.

Whether the contingency fee agreement between Redd and Hill entitles Redd to a portion of the supplemental attorney fees awarded to Hill.

Rule

The court held that a contingency fee agreement is enforceable as long as it is unambiguous and complies with the rules of professional conduct, specifically Rule 1.5 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct.

The court held that a contingency fee agreement is enforceable as long as it is unambiguous and complies with the rules of professional conduct, specifically Rule 1.5 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct.

Analysis

The court analyzed the language of the contingency fee agreement, determining that it was clear and unambiguous in stating that Redd was entitled to one-third of all monies paid to Hill related to her cause of action. The court found that the supplemental attorney fees awarded to Hill fell within the scope of the agreement, as they were part of the recovery resulting from Redd's representation. The court also noted that the agreement did not violate any professional conduct rules.

The court analyzed the language of the contingency fee agreement, determining that it was clear and unambiguous in stating that Redd was entitled to one-third of all monies paid to Hill related to her cause of action.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Redd was entitled to one-third of the supplemental attorney fees awarded to Hill, but denied his request for appellate attorney fees.

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Redd was entitled to one-third of the supplemental attorney fees awarded to Hill, but denied his request for appellate attorney fees.

Who won?

Don Redd prevailed in the case because the court found that the contingency fee agreement clearly entitled him to a portion of the supplemental attorney fees awarded to Hill.

Don Redd prevailed in the case because the court found that the contingency fee agreement clearly entitled him to a portion of the supplemental attorney fees awarded to Hill.

You must be