Legal Malpractice

Attorney Fees, Termination for Cause and Legal Malpractice

By (Andrew Lavoott Bluestone)

Fees and Attorneys seem to be a dyad that never stops recurring.  More correctly put, disputes about  fees and attorneys have been here forever.  we're certain that the bible contains some commentary, and we do know that Abraham Lincoln had attorney fee cases in his docket.  Here is a decision from Judge Scheindlin on the issue.

Simon v. Unum Group, 07 Civ. 11426;  Decided: June 22, 2010;  District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin; U.S. DISTRICT COURT  SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. 

"Section 475 of the New York Judiciary Law provides, in pertinent part:

From the commencement of an action,…the attorney who appears for a party has a lien upon his client's cause of action, claim or counterclaim, which attaches to a verdict, report, determination, decision, judgment or final order in his client's favor…. The court upon the petition of the client or attorney may determine and enforce the lien.

However, attorneys are not entitled to a charging liens in all instances. Under New York law, a client has an absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relationship at any time, with or without cause. 7 "If a lawyer is discharged for cause, he or she is not entitled to legal fees." 8 However, "[p]oor client relations, differences of opinion, or personality conflicts do not amount to cause." 9 Cause requires a showing of "impropriety or misconduct on the part of the attorney." 10 If the lawyer is not discharged for cause, then he or she is entitled to legal fees—which may be recovered either (1) in quantum meruit, the fair and reasonable value of the services rendered, or (2) as a contingent portion of the former client's ultimate recovery if the parties entered into a contingency agreement. 

If awarding fees in quantum meruit, the court may consider multiple factors to determine the fair and reasonable value of an attorney's legal services, including:

[(1)] the difficulty of the matter, [(2)] the nature and extent of the services rendered, [(3)] the time reasonably expended on those services, [(4)] the quality of performance by counsel, [(5)] the qualifications of counsel, [(6)] the amount at issue, and [(7)] the results obtained (to the extent known).

"It is appropriate, after 'consider[ing] all the factors relevant to a quantum meruit fee analysis…[to] turn[] to lodestar analysis to reach a specific dollar figure for the value of the services rendered[.]'"  "This method, which results in the determination of the presumptively reasonable fee, is comprised of a reasonable hourly rate multiplied by a reasonable number of expended hours."

Full post as published by New York Attorney Malpractice Blog on July 09, 2010 (boomark / email).