Wittich v. O’Connell, No. DA 12-0199 (Montana Supreme Court May 7, 2013) shows the dangers existent when a contract has a fees clause. There, a Montana couple disputed $93.99 of an earlier default $3,000 judgment obtained by former attorneys representing them, although satisfying the balance. The firm apparently chose to expend fees in chasing the unpaid portion, again seeming to rack up another $5,000 in legal expenses. Eventually, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the couple had to pay the $93.99 plus post-judgment collection fees based on a fees clause in the parties’ retention agreement. A concurring justice mused that it was too bad the parties could not work in out informally, and a dissenting justice–although finding the firm was within its rights–simply could not uphold what she believed to be an unconscionable result.