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

contractlawsuitdefendantattorneytrialverdict
contractlawsuitdefendantattorneytrial

Related Cases

Mourad v. Automobile Club Ins. Ass’n, 186 Mich.App. 715, 465 N.W.2d 395, 59 USLW 2495, 121 Lab.Cas. P 56,861, 6 IER Cases 193
View Case »
People v. Fett, 257 Mich.App. 76, 666 N.W.2d 676
View Case »
Martello v. Santana, 713 F.3d 309
View Case »
International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. Hoffa, 242 F.Supp. 246, 59 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2460, 51 Lab.Cas. P 19,750
View Case »
Stainton v. Tarantino, 637 F.Supp. 1051
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

McNeary v. American Cyanamid Co., 105 Wash.2d 136, 712 P.2d 845

Facts

The case arose from a personal injury lawsuit filed by Kay McNeary against several defendants, including American Cyanamid Company. Two law firms, Kantor & Rubin and Daniel F. Sullivan, entered into a retainer agreement intending to share the work and fees equally. However, Sullivan's firm performed most of the work and tried the case, while Kantor's firm retained some responsibility. After a successful verdict, a dispute arose over the division of the attorney fees, leading to the trial court's ruling that the fee agreement was voidable.

The case arose from a personal injury lawsuit filed by Kay McNeary against several defendants, including American Cyanamid Company.

Issue

Did the trial court err in declaring the fee division contract voidable and in its division of attorney fees without determining whether there was a substantial division of services or responsibility between the two law firms?

Did the trial court err in declaring the fee division contract voidable and in its division of attorney fees without determining whether there was a substantial division of services or responsibility between the two law firms?

Rule

Under CPR DR 2–107, attorneys from different firms may divide legal fees only with the client's consent after full disclosure, if the division is proportionate to the services performed and responsibility assumed by each, and if the total fee does not clearly exceed reasonable compensation.

Under CPR DR 2–107, attorneys from different firms may divide legal fees only with the client's consent after full disclosure, if the division is proportionate to the services performed and responsibility assumed by each, and if the total fee does not clearly exceed reasonable compensation.

Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the trial court failed to assess whether there was a substantial division of services or responsibility between the two law firms. The court noted that the trial court's findings focused primarily on Kantor's efforts without adequately considering Sullivan's contributions. This lack of analysis constituted an error, as the division of fees must reflect the actual work performed and responsibilities assumed by each attorney.

The Supreme Court found that the trial court failed to assess whether there was a substantial division of services or responsibility between the two law firms.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further findings regarding the division of services and responsibilities between the law firms.

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further findings regarding the division of services and responsibilities between the law firms.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the Minneapolis firm, Kantor & Rubin, as the Supreme Court's ruling favored their position by reversing the trial court's decision.

The prevailing party was the Minneapolis firm, Kantor & Rubin, as the Supreme Court's ruling favored their position by reversing the trial court's decision.

You must be