Pegging 40% Agreement As Quantum Meruit Recovery Was No Abuse.
A client in Anwyl, Scoffield, & Stepp v. Blackhurst, Case No. C059899 (3d Dist. Mar. 25, 2011) (unpublished) was not happy with the affirmance of a decision in which she was held liable to pay plaintiff law firm under a 40% contingency fee agreement even though she ultimately discharged plaintiff and carried on with a departing associate from the firm. However, both the trial and appellate courts found that plaintiff did not abandon her, so that the $97,000 plus fee award for quantum meruit was fair. The firm’s former associate did not attempt to “double dip” on fees, such that the award was equitable. Because there were no competing claims to the contingency fee, no further apportionment was necessary–distinguishing the situation from the pro rata adjustment necessary in Cazares v. Saenz, 208 Cal.App.3d 279 (1989) because multiple attorneys had competing claims.
Retainers. Wikipedia.