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

contractattorneytrial
contractattorneylawyerhearing

Related Cases

Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc., 230 Cal.App.4th 35, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 10, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,341, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,281
View Case »
Nordling v. Northern States Power Co., 478 N.W.2d 498, 60 USLW 2406, 124 Lab.Cas. P 57,260, 7 IER Cases 10
View Case »
Kriegsman v. Kriegsman, 150 N.J.Super. 474, 375 A.2d 1253
View Case »
Poling v. Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., 212 W.Va. 589, 575 S.E.2d 199
View Case »
State v. Berrysmith, 87 Wash.App. 268, 944 P.2d 397
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So.2d 1016

Facts

Levin hired Rosenberg and Pomerantz under a contract that stipulated a $10,000 fixed fee plus a contingent fee for amounts recovered over $600,000. Levin discharged the attorneys without cause before the legal matter was resolved and later settled for $500,000. The attorneys sued for fees based on quantum meruit, and the trial court awarded them $55,000, which was later reduced to $10,000 by the district court, stating that recovery could not exceed the contract amount.

The facts of this case reflect the following. Levin hired Rosenberg and Pomerantz to perform legal services pursuant to a letter agreement which provided for a $10,000 fixed fee, plus a contingent fee equal to fifty percent of all amounts recovered in excess of $600,000.

Issue

Whether the terms of an attorney employment contract limit the attorney's quantum meruit recovery to the fee set out in the contract.

The issue submitted to us for resolution is whether the terms of an attorney employment contract limit the attorney's quantum meruit recovery to the fee set out in the contract.

Rule

An attorney discharged without cause can recover the reasonable value of services rendered prior to discharge, limited to the maximum fee set in the contract.

We hold that a lawyer discharged without cause is entitled to the reasonable value of his services on the basis of quantum meruit, but recovery is limited to the maximum fee set in the contract entered into for those services.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the attorneys were entitled to recover only the maximum fee specified in their contract, which was $10,000, despite their claim for a higher amount based on quantum meruit. The court reasoned that allowing recovery beyond the contract amount would penalize the client for exercising their right to discharge the attorney.

We have carefully considered all the matters presented, both on the original argument on the merits and on rehearing. It is our opinion that it is in the best interest of clients and the legal profession as a whole that we adopt the modified quantum meruit rule which limits recovery to the maximum amount of the contract fee in all premature discharge cases involving both fixed and contingency employment contracts.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's decision, limiting the attorneys' recovery to $10,000, as it aligned with the contract terms and the principles of quantum meruit.

We conclude that this approach creates the best balance between the desirable right of the client to discharge his attorney and the right of an attorney to reasonable compensation for his services.

Who won?

The client prevailed in the case, as the court limited the attorneys' recovery to the contractually agreed amount of $10,000.

The district court also agreed that quantum meruit was the appropriate basis for recovery but lowered the amount awarded to $10,000, stating that recovery could in no event exceed the amount which the attorneys would have received under their contract if not prematurely discharged.

You must be