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

contractlawsuitbreach of contractattorneyappealtrialmotionsummary judgmentmotion for summary judgment

contractattorneyappealtrialsummary judgment

Related Cases

McIntosh v. Mills, 121 Cal.App.4th 333, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 66, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6992, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9468

Facts

J. Nicholas McIntosh, a nonattorney, entered into a fee-sharing agreement with attorney Robert W. Mills, where McIntosh was to receive 15% of the attorney fees from cases Mills was handling against Bank of America. The agreement was negotiated by McIntosh's attorney, David Anton, who had full authority to act on McIntosh's behalf. After Mills settled the cases and refused to pay McIntosh, the latter filed a lawsuit for breach of contract, leading to Mills's motion for summary judgment on the grounds of the agreement's illegality.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the fee-sharing agreement was enforceable and whether the doctrine of illegality applied to bar McIntosh's claim.

Rule

The court applied the doctrine of illegality, which states that if any part of a contract is illegal, the entire contract is void. Additionally, the court considered the pari delicto doctrine, which prevents a party from recovering under an illegal contract if they are equally at fault.

The court applied the doctrine of illegality, which states that if any part of a contract is illegal, the entire contract is void.

Analysis

The court found that the fee-sharing agreement violated California's professional conduct rules, which prohibit attorneys from sharing fees with nonattorneys. Since both parties were aware of the illegal nature of the agreement, the court concluded that they were in pari delicto, meaning neither party could seek enforcement of the contract.

The court found that the fee-sharing agreement violated California's professional conduct rules, which prohibit attorneys from sharing fees with nonattorneys.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Mills, concluding that the fee-sharing agreement was illegal and unenforceable.

Who won?

Robert W. Mills prevailed in the case because the court determined that the fee-sharing agreement was illegal and unenforceable under California law.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Foley-Ciccantelli v. Bishop’s Grove Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 333 Wis.2d 402, 2011 WI 36, 797 N.W.2d 789

Nordling v. Northern States Power Co., 478 N.W.2d 498, 60 USLW 2406, 124 Lab.Cas. P 57,260, 7 IER Cases 10

Edwards v. General Motors Corp., 153 F.3d 242, 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,568, 41 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1073

The Florida Bar v. Doe, 550 So.2d 1111, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 490

Hayes v. Central States Orthopedic Specialists, Inc., 51 P.3d 562, 2002 OK 30