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

contractsettlementattorney

contractattorneylawyer

Related Cases

Malonis v. Harrington, 442 Mass. 692, 816 N.E.2d 115

Facts

Marc J. Loiselle suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident and retained attorney George C. Malonis under a contingent fee agreement. After Loiselle discharged Malonis and hired successor attorney Robert W. Harrington, Harrington settled the case but refused to pay Malonis for the work he had done. Malonis filed a complaint seeking compensation for his legal services, which led to a series of court decisions culminating in the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling.

Loiselle suffered injuries on April 26, 1991, in a motor vehicle accident. The operator of the other vehicle was an employee of BFI. Within a few days of the accident, Loiselle retained Malonis to represent him in a personal injury action against BFI for a contingent fee of one-third the amount of any recovery received by Loiselle.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the discharged attorney, Malonis, was entitled to recover fees from the successor attorney, Harrington, under the theory of quantum meruit.

The broader question concerns who, as between the client and successor counsel, should pay a claim such as Malonis's when one lawyer is discharged and another retained.

Rule

The court applied the principle of quantum meruit, which allows a party to recover the reasonable value of services rendered when there is no enforceable contract due to discharge.

The general rule in Massachusetts is that, on discharge, an attorney has no right to recover on the contingent fee contract, but thereafter, the attorney may recover the reasonable value of his services on a theory of quantum meruit.

Analysis

The court found that all parties involved had a shared expectation that Harrington would compensate Malonis for his services. Despite Malonis's failure to submit an itemized bill when requested, the court determined that this did not bar his recovery. The judge concluded that Harrington was unjustly enriched by retaining the entire fee without compensating Malonis for the substantial work he had performed prior to his discharge.

The Superior Court judge determined that it was the shared 'expectation' of all the affected parties that Malonis's attorney's fees and expenses would be paid by Harrington from his contingent fee.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Malonis, holding that he was entitled to recover $10,320 in fees and $1,035.80 in expenses from Harrington.

We conclude that the judgment against Harrington should be affirmed based on the particular facts of this case.

Who won?

George C. Malonis prevailed in the case because the court recognized his entitlement to compensation for the legal services he provided, which contributed to the eventual settlement.

The judge concluded in a written memorandum of decision that Harrington was liable to Malonis and entered judgment accordingly.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass’n v. Addison, 226 Neb. 585, 412 N.W.2d 855

Muhammad v. Strassburger, McKenna, Messer, Shilobod and Gutnick, 526 Pa. 541, 587 A.2d 1346

In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 195 S.W.3d 807

Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal.4th 1140, 95 P.3d 513, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 289, 150 Lab.Cas. P 59,883, 21 IER Cases 1244, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7367, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9911

Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 93 F.Supp.2d 1140, 54 U.S.P.Q.2d 1114