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

contractdefendantattorneycompliancecontractual obligation
contractplaintiffdefendantattorneycompliancecontractual obligation

Related Cases

Cunningham v. Superior Court, 177 Cal.App.3d 336, 222 Cal.Rptr. 854
View Case »
Schuff v. A.T. Klemens & Son, 303 Mont. 274, 16 P.3d 1002, 2000 MT 357
View Case »
Character and Fitness Committee Office of Bar Admissions v. Jones, 62 S.W.3d 28
View Case »
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624, 79 USLW 4030, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 706, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 901, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 753
View Case »
U.S. v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 54 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 335, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5530, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7377
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Benjamin v. Koeppel, 85 N.Y.2d 549, 650 N.E.2d 829, 626 N.Y.S.2d 982

Facts

The attorney, who had been admitted to the Bar in 1958, failed to register with the Office of Court Administration when mandatory registration rules were enacted in 1981. He referred a client with a real property tax matter to the law firm, which agreed to pay him one third of any fees earned from the client. After the firm successfully completed the matter, the attorney requested his share, but the firm refused, leading to the present action.

Plaintiff was admitted to the Bar in 1958 after complying with the applicable educational, examination and character requirements. However, he did not register with the Office of Court Administration (OCA) when the mandatory registration *552 rules were enacted in 1981 (L.1981, ch. 714). Plaintiff, who apparently had not maintained a law office during the intervening 10 years, registered for the first time in April 1991, after the present action was commenced.

Issue

Can an attorney who has not complied with Judiciary Law § 468–a's registration requirements nonetheless recover payment for professional legal services rendered during the period of noncompliance?

Can an attorney who has not complied with Judiciary Law § 468–a 's registration requirements nonetheless recover payment for professional legal services rendered during the period of noncompliance?

Rule

The court held that the public policies underlying the State's attorney-registration system do not nullify otherwise valid contractual obligations, and the failure to register does not preclude an attorney's recovery of professional fees.

Concluding that the public policies underlying the State's attorney-registration ***983 **830 system do not furnish a reason to nullify otherwise valid contractual obligations, we hold that the failure to register does not preclude an attorney's recovery of professional fees.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining the nature of the registration requirement, concluding that it was more of a revenue-raising measure than a strict licensing scheme. The court noted that the attorney had performed services related to the case and that denying recovery would be disproportionate to the public policy concerns raised by the defendants.

Application of these precepts leads to a favorable conclusion for this plaintiff. Initially, there is sound reason to doubt the assumption that Judiciary Law § 468–a 's registration requirements constitute a licensing scheme analogous to the licensing *554 scheme for engineers that was considered in Charlebois v. Weller Assocs. (supra), the licensing scheme for real estate brokers that was considered in Galbreath–Ruffin Corp. v. 40th & 3rd Corp. (supra) and the licensing scheme for milk dealers that was considered in Rosasco Creameries v. Cohen (supra).

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment, allowing the attorney to recover his fees based on the valid fee-sharing agreement.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Who won?

The attorney prevailed in the case because the court found that his failure to register did not invalidate the fee-sharing agreement and that he had performed sufficient services to warrant payment.

The court also rejected defendants' contention that plaintiff should not be permitted to recover a fee because of his failure to register as required by Judiciary Law § 468–a.

You must be