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

settlementattorneyappealworkers' compensationbad faithcivil procedure

attorneyappealwillworkers' compensationrespondent

Related Cases

Mullens v. Hansel-Henderson, 65 P.3d 992

Facts

In 1990, Victoria Hansel-Henderson entered into a written contingent fee agreement with attorney Steven Mullens for representation in a workers' compensation claim. After discovering potential Bad Faith actions by her employer, Mullens and Hansel agreed to an additional oral fee arrangement for the Bad Faith claim, which was never documented in writing. Mullens successfully settled both claims, retaining a percentage of the total settlement amount. Two years later, Hansel initiated action against Mullens to recover the attorney fees, arguing that the oral agreement was unenforceable under Colorado law.

In 1990, respondent Victoria Hansel–Henderson entered into a written contingent fee agreement with petitioner Steven Mullens, a Colorado attorney with over twenty years experience in Workers' Compensation claims.

Issue

Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that an attorney must return fees received for legal services when the services were successfully completed but the agreement was not in writing?

We granted certiorari to decide whether the court of appeals erred in holding that an attorney must return fees received for legal services when the services were successfully completed but the agreement was not in writing.

Rule

An attorney may recover fees under quantum meruit for services rendered even if the contingent fee agreement is unenforceable, provided that the legal services have been successfully completed.

Therefore, we conclude that the rule in Dudding applies only to those situations where the attorney-client relationship terminates before the agreed upon legal services are completed.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed whether the notice requirement in Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Chapter 23.3 applied to situations where the legal services were completed. The Court concluded that the notice requirement was intended to protect clients when the attorney-client relationship is terminated before services are completed. Since Mullens had completed the agreed-upon services and Hansel had an expectation to pay for those services, the Court found that the lack of a written agreement did not preclude Mullens from recovering fees under quantum meruit.

The notice requirement fulfills an important function. The purpose of Rule 5(d) is to assure that the client knows whether she will be liable for attorney's fees under quantum meruit when there is not already an expectation to pay.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that Mullens was entitled to retain the fees earned for the legal services provided to Hansel, despite the unenforceability of the contingent fee agreement.

We hold that Mullens earned reasonable attorney fees, despite an unenforceable contingency agreement, under quantum meruit.

Who won?

Steven Mullens prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court determined that he was entitled to quantum meruit recovery for the legal services he successfully completed.

Thus, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand for the court to decide any remaining issues consistent with this opinion.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password